But please cut the I-know-more-than-you-because-I-summered-in-Seville-reading-historical-novels nonsense.
Regarding the phenomena of anti-Americanism: I will trust my observations based on four years working overseas plus having had many foreign roommates during my time in grad school in the US. Also note what I said about anti-Americanism among Europeans I met: “Most were pro-American, or at least friendly-neutral.”

This stuff ain’t so black-and-white.
Apparently so, when an article you cite contradicts your assertion that anti-Americanism in Europe is primarily anti-Bushism. What parts of “majoritarian” and “1960’s ” do you not understand?

And I hate it when people oversimplify so it fits in their little ideological boxes so neatly.
“Most were pro-American or at least friendly-neutral.” Oversimplification to state that along w some observations of anti-Americanism?

Rather, you appear to hate it when you cite an article , and others find evidence in said article that flatly contradicts your point of view. What parts of “majoritarian” and “1960’s ” do you not understand? (Not to mention the article also mentions anti-Americanism in Spain being based on phenomena that clearly predate 2001.)

I would agree with you that anti-Americanism in Europe is often somewhat schizophrenic, which also dovetails with my previous assertion that it is stronger among the elite than the common man. See Orwell’s remark about intellectuals. Someone once made the observation that after several beers, anti-Americanism among Europeans often disappeared.

FWIW, I wonder what your reaction is to this example of anti-Americanism from an article written by Markus Günther, an award-winning German journalist- and reactions to it. While his article in German is apparently offline now, there is an English translation from commenter Poldi.

Judging by the d-g folks, we’re already there.

On the sources of difference between the two continents, you’ll have to substantiate that those differences politically are based upon a 10% swing toward socialism. I’m skeptical but would like to understand the argument more.

More fundamentally, I think that Americans have to understand that our country would have a totally different outlook about the world if we’d been through what Europe has been through. The political diversity and continual warring has led to the sacking of every major city on that continent. That we have not experienced this has less to do with moral superiority or even that our political/economic system is better, but simply because our country was formed as one and insulated by two large oceans. If the US had experienced 200 years of being overrun by Russians, Brazilians and Chinese, we would have different worldviews than we do now. Europe is more reticent to engage militarily and is offended by the US lack of circumspection for this reason, among others. And if you look at the differences between us and them on a variety of issues, from the welfare state to genetically modified foods, you can see historical explanations for the differences. One should understand the historical contingency of those differences before disparaging the place. I tell my European friends the same thing about the US, by the way. Perhaps you do as well, Danny.

Obama’s offer: an end to US stupidity
Simon Jenkins
Speeches matter. Barack Obama’s oration to the Democratic convention on Thursday was an epic performance. He held 80,000 people in his hand. He made them laugh and he made them cry. He was humble and he was grand. He thanked the right people, especially Hillary Clinton, and in the right order.
[snip]
At this point a classic American cussedness enters the debate. Whether he should win is confused with whether he can win. The world’s greatest festival of democracy descends into paradox. Is America, the home of black advancement, “ready” to elect a black man? Is Obama too elitist yet too popular, too radical yet too much a trimmer, too Harvard yet too exotic in his poor background? Is he too inexperienced abroad yet too much liked abroad? Is he too slim, too happy? Is he just too . . . everything?
[snip]
Certainly Obama has played the cautious legislator, equivocating over gun control, Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been goaded into showing himself tougher than tough in foreign policy, yet has chosen his words with care. On America’s gaffe-strewn morality agenda, he has been sure-footed.

Of all the accusations against Obama at home that have so puzzled America’s friends abroad, none has seemed more bizarre than that he is popular with them. There is no contest here. In Europe, Gallup recently put Obama on between 50% and 85% support, with McCain in the range of 15%-20%. Across Africa, Asia and Latin America, Obama leads by nine to one. He is by far the most popular world politician in a generation. This surely matters. It is a contest from which the world cannot stand aloof, since American presidents do not stand aloof from the world.
[snip]
This is the hope that Obama offers the world, of an end to stupidity. His name, his ethnicity and his message of conciliation and negotiation promise a new chapter. Americans, locked in the prison of their media and their aversion to travel, cannot begin to realise how powerful a message would go out in the election of a black president.

This is unrelated to what such an election would mean in practice.

Obama has been forced to back away from an immediate end to the Iraq war and wants, recklessly, to entrap his country further in the unwinnable Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan/Pakistan. He also appears compliant in the insane Nato strategy of encircling Russia with belligerent states.

The truth is that liberal presidents are often forced to be illiberal, doveish ones to be hawkish. Obama would find it hard to appease Palestine, Iran, the Taliban or Moscow. He would find it hard to face down his protectionist supporters in the unions: witness his offer to use federal money to “stop the exporting of American jobs”. He would find it hard to give meaning to “ending American dependence on Middle East oil”.

America’s political institutions were always less susceptible to corrupt tampering than Europe’s.

This is why we hold out and they fall. Doesn’t mean everybody won’t fall, though, in the end.

I happen to love my European family and roots – but this does not apply to the socialist /leftwing elites that dominate public policy and social opinion and who, in my opinion, bear the responsibility for much of what has befallen Europe in the past 100 years. It has nothing to do with a sense of superiority – I will argue that the only difference between the U.S. and EUrope is a 10% swing in the voting population toward socialism in Europe and toward conservatism in the U.S. We have the same EUtopian socialist disease here and it is most evident in the Democrat party. We have the same social virus here, it’s just not as virulent yet.

If you want to get to one fundamentally, to explain the difference, I recognize that I still exist as a citizen of a free democratic nation where I can still exercise political power. Even my relatives are coming to the realization (esp. given the Lisbon Treaty) that they are increasingly subjects of a socialist uber-state with within which the can exercise very little and ever-diminishing political power.

As far as the Europeans’ use of the internet and the quality of media coverage they get on the U.S., we will just have to disagree.

Sorry, but my experience is that there are precious few EUropeans that understand the United States – tourism to New York or San Francisco (and vice versa, to Paris or London) doesn’t count – my experience is that you need to live someplace at least 2 years before you learn to look under the veneer and figure out what is happening.

You are correct, the average EUro elite knows more about the U.S. than the average American knows (or cares) about Europe. Then again, I would argue that the average educated American Elite knows more about Europe than the “average” European. But then, we have a vast country and I find that, in general, Americans in general know more about Latin America and Asia than Euros in general do. Foreign languages? Obama notwithstanding (Mr. “merci beaucoup”), most people that I know in the Chicago area do speak a second language (Polish, Spanish, Russian, Korean) because of their ethnic make-up and people along the borderlands tend to be bilingual in Spanish….because they have to be. For many manufacturing plants in my industry, a working knowledge of Spanish is required. Same as the EUropeans – they speak other languages because they have to. So what?

Regarding foreign aid…Europe doesn’t receive foreign from us, DG. They do depend upon us for their defense, however, and that has to stop. This is an apple /oranges issue vis-a-vis foreign aid to countries that really need it, which is an issue that we can probably postpone for a different day. What say you?

BrianE, thank you for helping to establish that the evangelical support for Israel is founded on unproveable religious beliefs rather than rational foreign policy and national security considerations.

I wasn’t aware it was a secret that Christians support Israel because of Israel’s place in history. I can certainly make a case for supporting Israel on rational foreign policy and national security considerations if that would make you feel better.

Those that exploit this ignorance for their narrow purposes is no friend of the US.

Now this is too subtle, though no one is exploiting anyone in their support of Israel. The only people being exploited are the Palestineans, who are the pawns of Islamists.
I support a two state solution, even though I am realistic enough to know that the Mullahs will never let this occur. They have too much to gain by keeping Israel in their gunsights and the Palestineans as their poster children of oppression.

dagon said:

i’m sure rev. wright would agree as well.

I didn’t know he was a staunch supporter of Israel as well.