Is Bush the Better Peace-With-Europe Candidate?

John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs
Ashland University


Scholar Program | Publications | Audio Archive | Donate | About Us ||
Search | Home


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



Is Bush the Better Peace-With-Europe Candidate?
Editorial
August 2004

by: John Zvesper



The publicity that John Kerry gained from the Democratic National Convention
has made him only slightly less of an international man of mystery.
Europeans remain uncertain as to how his policies would differ from those of
the Bush administration. As in America, ignorance of Kerry's positions on
important issues stems partly from the fact that he has tried to be many
things to many men-a perfectly understandable strategy, although one that
will be difficult for him to sustain.

Of course, just as for many Americans, this uncertainty about the candidates
' differences does not stop Europeans from adopting strongly-held opinions
about who deserves to win. This is not unprecedented. For example, Europeans
had trouble taking Ronald Reagan as a serious contender for the White House,
even the second time around. But it is remarkable the extent to which not
only European pundits and chatterers but also certain politicians have
rushed to endorse Kerry, as if Bush's candidacy were simply not worth
considering.

Many (but not all) Europeans-like many Americans-have harbored doubts about
George Bush as president from the word go, even before his decisive
reactions to the murderous attacks on Washington and New York in 2001, and
well before the divisions between Europe and America over the war in Iraq.
So these Europeans are less interested in scrutinizing than in supporting
any potential replacement for Bush, especially one who has promised to try
to regain respect for America among Europeans. Like some Americans, these
Europeans have always been frightened by Bush's unhidden religious
convictions and by his willingness to talk about good and evil. Sensitivity
to these elements of Bush's character is so high that anything Bush says, no
matter how down-to-earth and rational, is seen in the light of this damning
tendency to make judgements based on consideration of human good and evil
(has this not been banished from civilized politics?), and it is frequently
quite erroneously concluded that Bush's religious convictions directly
dictate his policies, in spite of his patient and succinct explanations to
the contrary (e.g. in a Paris Match interview last May).

However, the extent to which this anybody-but-Bush syndrome thrives in
Europe should not be exaggerated. It is not universal, and Bush can count
more statesmen than Tony Blair as friends and allies in Europe. Nor should
the older, more generic, less Bush-specific anti-American sentiments of
Europeans-though these are strong and durable-be seen as unqualified and
unchanging. Just as there are pessimistic, "European"-minded people in
America, there are optimistic, "American"-minded people in Europe. Half of
the twenty-five governments in the enlarged European Union have been part of
the Coalition for Iraqi Freedom. President Chirac of France, who has
recently been the source of many anti-American initiatives, is being stalked
in his own party by an ambitious young rival for the presidency, Nicolas
Sarkozy, who in interviews has been accused of having a soft spot for
America. Chirac has also been losing ground in EU politics, where he has
failed to get his candidates into high office, and where the French notion
of constructing Europe as a "counterweight" or "adversary" to America is
rejected as "stupid" by the incoming EU President (the Prime Minister of
Portugal, José Manuel Barroso, who has lived and worked in the United
States).

It is true that a Kerry victory might help get certain European
governments-notably France and Germany-out of the hole they have dug
themselves into by leading opposition to American policies in Iraq. (They
were not, as they often claim, just offering advice to a friend; they were
arrogantly insisting that their friend take that advice.) This helps explain
the extent to which these countries are hoping that Bush will lose. But this
could work the other way around, too: the re-election of Bush, by
reaffirming America's commitment to the policies it has adopted since
September 2001, and thus its will to win the war with Islamofascism, could
help change the policies and the personnel of these European governments.
The Kerry alternative, indulging Europeans' anti-Americanism by focusing on
some of America's many faults and mistakes, would be neither an effective
nor a healthy way to encourage European-American unity.

That is not the only way in which Bush could prove to be a better
peace-with-Europe candidate than Kerry. As some Europeans have remarked, a
President Kerry might well exacerbate European-American divisions, because
of his more protectionist economics, and because he has raised Americans'
expectations that Europe should contribute more to the war. A recent
newspaper editorial in Vienna (in Die Presse) even warned that Europeans
should be careful what they wish for: confronted by a President Kerry,
Europe could no longer "turn up its nose at the coarse Texan George Bush and
duck its responsibilities in international crises." That is probably going
too far; it is more likely that Europeans who wanted to would continue to
find it possible just to say no to a President Kerry, whatever inducements
and face-saving devices he was able to offer them.

Among Europeans, especially since the Democratic Convention, there has been
some appreciation that if Kerry were to become President, though America's
domestic policies would change, its international policies might not. It now
seems that Kerry's policies on Iraq-and perhaps even in the wider war-might
turn out to be no less muscular than Bush's. (In the 1960s Bill Rood, when
he was teased about his Democratic Party loyalty, used to wisecrack: "well,
they get us into all the wars, don't they?") In any case, whoever is
President-as Bill Clinton found-Europeans do not always share America's
interests or views. Europeans are generally more reluctant to admit that
military means can be successfully used for political ends, and not many
Europeans share Americans' views about the rights and wrongs of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the view that liberal democratic reform in
Arab countries is a feasible (even if desirable) remedy for that conflict
and for terrorism more generally.

European commentators have recognized that such divisions between America
and Europe will probably persist whoever wins the presidential election.
More than five months ago, The Economist commented that "Mr Kerry might
explain American views more tactfully than Mr Bush. He might even do it in
French. But transatlantic tensions would endure." Americans should become
more aware of this fact, and should not assume that electing Kerry would be
a very effective way of easing tensions with Europe. Moreover, as we have
seen, if they want to persuade more Europeans and their governments to
support American foreign policy-insofar as such persuasion is possible-they
should ask themselves whether a re-elected President Bush might be better
placed to do that than a new President Kerry.

John Zvesper is an Adjunct Fellow of the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs.
He is an American author residing in Europe.

"Glenn Weinstein" wrote


Is Bush the Better Peace-With-Europe Candidate?
Editorial
August 2004

by: John Zvesper

body of article snipped


Americans should become
more aware of this fact, and should not assume that electing Kerry would
be
a very effective way of easing tensions with Europe. Moreover, as we have
seen, if they want to persuade more Europeans and their governments to
support American foreign policy-insofar as such persuasion is
possible-they
should ask themselves whether a re-elected President Bush might be better
placed to do that than a new President Kerry.

John Zvesper is an Adjunct Fellow of the Ashbrook Center for Public
Affairs.
He is an American author residing in Europe.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Interesting, in light of the discussions of late, here, even if it was
posted here by mistake.
--
Jim in NC

OT

Vaughn

"Glenn Weinstein" wrote in message ...
John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs
Ashland University


pure unadulterated male bovine excrement hacked.

It has been said, falsely, that people "identify" with the GWeeB. Why
anyone would want to "Identify" with an IQ in the negative numbers has
never been explained.

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote:

"Glenn Weinstein" wrote in message ...
John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs
Ashland University

pure unadulterated male bovine excrement hacked.

It has been said, falsely, that people "identify" with the GWeeB. Why
anyone would want to "Identify" with an IQ in the negative numbers has
never been explained.

If you REALLY want to find some people who aren't too bright, try
looking for those who honestly believe and idiot can rise to the most
powerful position on the planet (or have a 1200+ SAT score or fly
F-102's, or graduate from Yale and Harvard).

I mean, how gullible do you have to be to buy into that nonsense?

Mark "we've never had a dumb president" Hickey

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:23:53 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:



Mark "we've never had a dumb president" Hickey

We have now.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:42:55 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:23:53 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:



Mark "we've never had a dumb president" Hickey

We have now.


GWB is proof that anybody can become President, but not everybody
should.

Graham Shevlin wrote:

GWB is proof that anybody can become President, but not everybody
should.

When I first saw the above, I thought you meant:

Good Water Bill

I'm okay now... I think...

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
(Lennie the Lurker) wrote:

If you REALLY want to find some people who aren't too bright, try
looking for those who honestly believe and idiot can rise to the most
powerful position on the planet (or have a 1200+ SAT score or fly
F-102's, or graduate from Yale and Harvard).

A rich & powerful daddy can be a big asset. It also helps to be a corporate
whore so the other rich & powerful white guys can give you lots of $$$$. It
also helps to have a governor brother who has no quams about massaging a few
votes to push the election in the "right" direction.

I mean, how gullible do you have to be to buy into that nonsense?


How stupid do you have to be to not see what a nitwit he is after hearing
him speak? He can't come up with more than 1 or 2 coherent sentences in a
row. And he needs to make up words to get that far.

From: "geo"
Date: 8/29/2004 7:04 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: EauYc.13415$tI.6026@trndny04

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
.. .
(Lennie the Lurker) wrote:

If you REALLY want to find some people who aren't too bright, try
looking for those who honestly believe and idiot can rise to the most
powerful position on the planet (or have a 1200+ SAT score or fly
F-102's, or graduate from Yale and Harvard).

A rich & powerful daddy can be a big asset. It also helps to be a corporate
whore so the other rich & powerful white guys can give you lots of $$$$. It
also helps to have a governor brother who has no quams about massaging a few
votes to push the election in the "right" direction.

So his father made it so he could be fully qualified to fly F-102s even though
jet fighters take a lot of skill and intelligence to pilot? Do you really
believe that? If so do you have any idea how ludicrous that sounds?

I mean, how gullible do you have to be to buy into that nonsense?


How stupid do you have to be to not see what a nitwit he is after hearing
him speak? He can't come up with more than 1 or 2 coherent sentences in a
row. And he needs to make up words to get that far.

So people with speech impediments are nitwits?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired