Does world opinion matter?
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 12-02-2003 - 4:39pm |
Bush's PR Problem
By Fareed Zakaria
Tuesday, December 2, 2003; Page A27
President Bush's Thanksgiving trip to Iraq was a generous and bold-hearted gesture of support to American troops. What made it such a success, however, was that it managed to severely limit an otherwise unavoidable aspect of travel: contact with foreigners. When Bush has had to go beyond U.S. Army bases in recent weeks, the tours have not gone so well.
Traveling through East Asia last week, I noted how poorly most observers rated Bush's recent trip there. Even more striking, however, was the comparison repeatedly made between Bush's visit and that of Chinese President Hu Jintao -- with a thumping majority believing Hu had done better.
In Thailand at the meeting for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, "there was no question that Hu was the better appreciated one," a Thai official said to me. "He outshone Bush in most of the attendees' eyes." The trips ended with the two making back-to-back visits to Australia. Bush was greeted with demonstrations, his address to Parliament interrupted by hecklers. Hu, on the other hand, got a 20-minute standing ovation from Parliament. "It is Hu's visit rather than George W. Bush's that will provide a lingering sense of satisfaction and security about Australia's place in the region," wrote the Australian, a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch and not given to knee-jerk anti-Americanism.
What is going on here? How does the chief representative of the world's oldest constitutional democracy lose a popularity contest to the leader of a Leninist party?
Let's start with the atmospherics. Everywhere Bush travels, his security is handled with the usual American overkill: huge numbers of guards and aides, walled-off compounds, tightly scripted movements from one bubble to another. Hu, by contrast, had a modest security detail, traveled freely and mingled with other leaders and even the general public. (Tony Blair sometimes manages to travel abroad with a total of six people.)
Bush's trip to London two weeks ago is now being heralded as a great success. But here is how one of the president's most ardent supporters, his former speechwriter David Frum, saw it while in London himself. "Bush was sealed away from London for the entire visit. There was no drive down the Mall, no address to Parliament, no public events at all," Frum wrote in his Weblog on National Review Online. "The trip's planners reduced the risk of confrontations -- but only by broadcasting to the British public their tacit acknowledgement that the visit was unpopular and unwelcome. By eliminating from the president's schedule events with any touch of spontaneity or public contact, the trip planners made the president look as if he could not or would not engage with ordinary British people." In Great Britain, Frum concluded, "the United States has a problem, a big one -- and it was made worse, not better, by this recent visit."
But the deeper problem is not one of style but of substance. Bush's trips to Southeast Asia and Australia focused single-mindedly on the war on terror. Karim Raslan, a Malaysian writer, explained the local reaction: "Bush came to an economic group and talked obsessively about terror. He sees all of us through that one prism. Yes, we worry about terror, but frankly that's not the sum of our lives. We have many other problems. We're retooling our economies, we're wondering how to deal with the rise of China, we're trying to address health, social and environmental problems. Hu talked about all this; he talked about our agenda, not just his agenda."
There is a lack of empathy emanating from Washington. After the Bali bombings, which were Australia's Sept. 11, the administration did not bother to send a high-level envoy to a steadfast ally for condolences. Australians had to make do with a videotape of George Bush. Even last week, Bush could surely have arranged to meet in Baghdad with a few troops from allied countries who are also fighting and dying in Iraq.
What is most dismaying about this state of affairs is that for the past 50 years the United States has skillfully merged its own agenda with the agendas of others, creating a sense of shared interests and values. When Presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy waged the Cold War, they also presented the world with a constructive agenda dealing with trade, poverty and health. They fought communism with one hand and offered hope with the other. We have fallen far from that model if the head of the Chinese Communist Party is seen as presenting the world with a more progressive agenda than the president of the world's leading democracy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27057-2003Dec1.html
The second covers the rift between the US and the EU over Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27063-2003Dec1.html
This article sheds an a less victorious light on the Samarra Massacre
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=68502c5eae5b193f0d75af16d5b0ce6b

Pages
And, exactly which part of my post are you questioning?
Renee
That's your opinion. Many believe that it has drawn out the terrorists who were training for and plotting other attacks. One of the difficulties of dealing with this scum is that they have been spread out all over the place. Iraq is drawing them together which makes it much easier for us to find and apprehend them something that's proven to be challenging outside of a war zone or kill them which is impossible in other situations.
The military and security forces who are taking the brunt of the attacks are also less vulnerable targets than unsuspecting, unprepared civilians. Al-Queda has been insisting for years that this is a war, and it's time that we stopped allowing them to choose the timing, the battlefield, and the target. The troops in Iraq are making themselves targets so innocent men, women, and children throughout the world will not be.
<>
Exactly who is it that you think is quaking with fear and cowering in the dark? They don't let it get out to the western press, but that was pretty much what the foreign fighters who have given interviews describe. Between our firepower and Iraqi hostility, a number of them have run back home complaining that the Iraqis are ungrateful, and they we tired, hungry, and afraid and spent just about all their time hiding from the military and from Iraqis.
Renee
Um, pardon me, but you seem to be having some difficulty tracking the dialog between RM & me.
My original comment was in response to this post you made:
No longer are we the home of the brave and optimistic. I found another article which compared China's growing economic power in Asia and the US's dower obcession with Muslim militants, but alas I lost the URL.
I too hope we get out of the doldrums soon.
I used the term 'bummer' in reference the 'dower obsession' and 'doldrums' that you described.
If you pick up our conversation from post #6 & read slowly, it should make sense to you.
As to your question, no, I don't particularly care if people in other countries approve of our policies or not. As long as the American public approves, the other is incidental.
The US has never been particularly concerned about it's reputation abroad, and as far as I'm aware has never made domestic policy based on the views of foreign countries.
Renee
No I ham having difficulty coping with your reading ability. I was responding to a post directed to me. I can undestand bummer, but why Clinton instead of China?
Edited 12/4/2003 11:06:34 AM ET by wrhen
Renee
"This disagreement about HOW Bush is going about this (not whether or not it should be done) is what is polarizing the American people right down the middle (along with world opinion). "
As for polls, they currently show America pretty much split down the middle (just as sue said). In most polls I've seen, President Bush has been slipping for months and is hanging onto a majority by
less than 10%. Very encouraging for Democrats considering that this president had sky high approval ratings just last year. Here's a site that gives you easy access to a variety of current polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
Of course the polls differ, but here's my favorite:
"if the upcoming election for president were held today and the candidates were Republican George W. Bush and the Democratic nominee for president, for whom would you vote: Republican George W. Bush or the Democratic nominee for president?
11/03 Bush: 42% Democrat: 48% No Answer: 10%
07/03 Bush: 45% Democrat 44% No Answer: 12%
And if you think for some reason that these polls are slanted just because the web site has links to Clark & Dean campaigns on top, don't miss the results of the Zogby Poll (Remember Zogby? They conducted that poll of Iraqi's you posted a few months ago, so I trust that you'd agree they're impartial.)
Zogby America Poll:
"If the election for president were held today, for whom would you vote: the Republican George W. Bush or the Democratic candidate?
George W. Bush: 41% Democrat: 41%
Really couldn't be any more down the middle, could it?
I am so happy, now I can continue to make the point about China. BTW comparing GWB with Clinton is not news but replace Clinton and it is IMHO news.
The final paragraph of the first article says:
“We have fallen far from that model if the head of the Chinese Communist Party is seen as presenting the world with a more progressive agenda than the president of the world's leading democracy.” See post #1.
In case anyone is interested China is emerging as a power in the world today. I think this news worth following.
CHINA'S ECONOMIC EXPLOSION
Few nations have changed as fast -- or as dramatically -- as China has since the 1970s. The world's most populous nation has radically liberalized its economy and gone from producing low-quality and simple exports to sophisticated high-technology goods, while nurturing a vibrant private sector and attracting nearly $500 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI). The country has turned into a formidable exporting machine: China's total exports grew eightfold -- to over $380 billion -- between 1990 and 2003; and its exports in the electronics industry now account for 30 percent of Asia's total in that sector. China's share of global exports will reach 6 percent in 2003, compared to 3.9 percent in 2000. Last year, China accounted for 16 percent of the growth in the world economy, ranking second only to the United States.
There is no question, therefore, that China's emergence as a great economic power will rank as one of the major issues confronting world leaders in the next few decades and that its progress demands careful analysis. To start, it is worth examining China's winning strategies -- economic liberalization, a focus on high technology, and its resolve to become a regional leader -- as well as its challenges -- the widening gap between its urban and rural populations, growing unemployment, and the increased challenges posed by its aging population. Next, it is important to consider the effects that its stunning success has had both at home and abroad. China's progress has unnerved many of its neighbors and trading partners: Asian countries worry about losing their competitive edge, especially in high-technology markets; in the United States, concern has been mounting over the country's considerable -- and growing -- trade deficit with China.
http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/20031101faessay_v82n6_hale.html
Summary: The recent crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons has had at least one unexpected aspect: the crucial -- and highly effective -- intervention of Beijing. China's steady diplomacy is a sign of how much things have changed in the country, which has long avoided most international affairs. Recently, China has begun to embrace regional and global institutions it once shunned and take on the responsibilities that come with great-power status. Just what the results of Beijing's new sophistication will be remains to be seen; but Asia, and the world, will never be the same.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faessay82604/evan-s-medeiros-m-taylor-fravel/china-s-new-diplomacy.html
In addition, China and Japan hole much of the US debt. The debt that GWB is increasing at an alarming rate.
Also I have to admit that I have very little first hand experience with the Southern States nor do I know many people from there (I passed through some of them once). Due to the reality of geography and my pocket book I am quite familiar with and have quite a few friends from the states along the northeast (New York, Vermont) as well as California because I have family there (oh yes! I have some family in Hawaii too). These are the Americans that I know and they all seem to share my views. As a comfort to Wrehn, my DH and I have differing views of the Iraq war and approach. He's more conservative than I.
He also loves to watch big bombs fall on TV in that nifty green night scope effect thingy (while for me, it makes me sick imagining the people - or "soft targets" on the other end)...I usually have to leave the room for that. On the other hand when they talk about the human element of the war DH gets bored and wants to change the channel. Must be a "macho" thing. ;O)
I find this farily even split in the population alarming especially considering how regionalized it is. I think it would be much less worrisome if the split was kind of scattered evenly throughout the country. I am seeing two completely divergant visions to how Americans wish to define themselves and that is disturbing. We can't have such infighting tearing the country apart and I personally see no way around it. This North South thing did not seem to resolve itself with the civil war.
There also seems to be a few other demographics to consider in these splits...Christians vs Other....and "intelligensia" or "elitist" vs "working man" or "average American" (I find the "average American" reference a little off here as the numbers belie that label)...well actually the other label of "elitist" vs "working man" which is also inaccurate. Professsors and liabrarians work just as hard as a cashier at Walmart...these slightly inaccurate labels in themselves are contributing to the rift.
Another thing I find alarming is that the Republicans are so much better organized (and have so much more big money at their disposal) than the Democrats (Dean is also not my favourite candidate either). I do hope they get their act together soon. The Bush hatred (which is difficult to overcome) is colouring their logic too much. We don't want the Democrats looking like shrews to the Republicans and undecideds now can we? Especially when Bush looks so much like a "real man's man" plowing forward, not asking for help, his jaw set, secure in the knowledge that the end justifies the means.
;o)
That's true which is also how the seeming dichotomy about Republicans being better informed yet less well educated that someone brought up yesterday. Red America is less educated and more 'common' than blue America on avg., but Republicans & Democrats live in both areas. Typically middle & upper middle class southerners would be more comperable in education to blue America, but still share the values & polititical views of red America.
<< I am seeing two completely divergant visions to how Americans wish to define themselves and that is disturbing. We can't have such infighting tearing the country apart and I personally see no way around it.>>
I agree completely, unfortunately, I don't think the culture war will be resolving itself any time soon. In fact, a few months ago there was an interesting article, in the WP or NYT, about how it is probably going to get more polarized and geographically segregated because the last census picked up data that indicated, for the first time, a statistically significant number of Americans are moving to parts of the country that they identify with.
<>
Actually Republicans do have the advantage in campaign funding, but it's not due to big money. Corporate donations are equally split among Reps & Dems. The majority of Republican donations come from individuals giving less than $1000. Democrats get the bulk of their money from wealthy contributors donating $1 million or more which is soft money.
Since campaign finance reform (which the Dems wanted) they are falling even more behind (as we warned them would happen) than usual since it put more restrictions on soft money.
Page with lots of references:
http://usconservatives.about.com/library/weekly/aapartydemographicsa.htm
Statistically, you're more likely to be a Republican and/or conservative if you're:
a man
a college graduate
in the top income bracket
an evangelical Christian
living in a rural area
a Thinker-Sensor
Statistically, you're more likely to be a Democrat and/or liberal if you're:
a woman
a senior citizen
gay
nonwhite
living in an urban area
a Feeler-Intuitor
More Statistics:
Gallup Poll
War Support Steady Despite Growing Concern With U.S. Handling of Iraq
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031119.asp
Key Demographics Emerge Early in 2004 Race
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93838,00.html
There are more Republican voters than there used to be.
<>
http://www.atr.org/opeds/tas/tas0599.html
Exit Poll for 2000 election
http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html
Renee
Pages