"Pro-American"

Oliver Kamm and Andrew Sullivan both detect a certain lack of quality in speculation as to the nature of Gordon Brown's foreign policy views that puts a lot of emphasis on his admiration for Cape Cod as a source of the belief that he'll pursue a "pro-American" line.

All true, but also all tending to indicate a certain blinkered quality to the "anti-Americanism" frame. Francophilia is, I think, something we all understand as being distinct from admiration for French foreign policy and a desire to see France' hand strengthened abroad. The Francophile loves Paris, or the countryside in the South; admires French literature and painting; is charmed by the way French women throw their scarves so stylishly and with seemingly so little effort. As to whether or not you think France's heavyhandedly neocolonial approach to Francophone Africa has been a good thing, this is neither here nor there.

The reason is that one's feelings about French national power have, at the end of the day, almost nothing to do with one's feelings about France. Similarly, it's not a dislike of America that leads many people to be uncomfortable with exercises of unilateral American military might. Having a foreign country deploy so much lethal force so cavalierly and with so little regard to world opinion or international institutions is, simply put, frightening and it's this frightening quality that drives negative views of the US; not negative views of the US that make unilateral militarism scary.

Comments

"Similarly, it's not a dislike of America that leads many people to be uncomfortable with exercises of unilateral American military might."

Of course. They hate us for our freedoms.

-----

My favorite weird thinking along the lines you discuss is the notion that if a foreign despot likes Scotch, he's gotta be secretly on our side.

This logic has been used with Musharraf and Andropov, among others.

Posted by Petey | May 23, 2007 11:56 AM

the analogy isn't quite true, because where Pax Americana leads, McDonalds tends to follow.

Posted by Chris | May 23, 2007 12:00 PM

Have I ever seen a French woman throw a scarf? I don't think I have. Now I feel like I'm missing something, although I'm not quite sure what.

I think a love of French culture among the French probably influenced their belief that their treatment of their colonies was benevolent.

And I think a love of American culture among Americans discourages self-criticism among Americans as well when it comes to the exercise of American power abroad.

So there may be a connection between the culture and the politics on the "pro" side, which is improperly generalized to apply to the motivations of the "anti" side.

Posted by Wilbur | May 23, 2007 12:09 PM

I feel like this is a point that's completely lost on a certain stripe of "America always has great intentions!" exceptionalist.

Posted by Scott E. | May 23, 2007 12:15 PM

The two are always connected to a degree.

Take Britain's rule if India. Anglophiles believe it was mostly for the better -cricket,tea, railways, a centralized modern bureaucracy. Anglophobes emphasize the dark aspects - exploitation, the rise of religious tensions and so on.

Posted by David | May 23, 2007 12:28 PM

Reminds me of the joke about the English hating the French because they thought France was too good for them. I'm sure there's a genre of anti-American feeling along the lines of "they have this beautiful, rich, spacious country, and they're just screwing it all up!"

Posted by ajay | May 23, 2007 12:43 PM

"The reason is that one's feelings about French national power have, at the end of the day, almost nothing to do with one's feelings about France. "

Hard to say. Those who object to France throwing its weight around are most often Americans who want our country to be the only one that has any weight to throw. These people tend to be conservative, and US conservatives have a lot of trouble distinguishing between positions and people, situations and personalities. From what I've seen, they think France is a pain precisely because French people are pains.

Your point about world reaction to US behavior is very important, and it tends to get lost in conversation here because of the very same tendency described above.

Posted by kyle | May 23, 2007 12:50 PM

Apparently, Gordon Brown has not tried getting across the Sagamore Bridge (connects Cape Cod with the MA "mainland") on a Friday night during the Summer.

If he did, I suspect he'd send the Royal Navy to start blasting away.

Posted by scott | May 23, 2007 1:07 PM

very well put MY

Posted by newdome | May 23, 2007 1:15 PM

I don't think that these things are as seperate as they ought to be. I think that if you're a critic of a country's culture/atmosphere/ethos, then you tend to go looking for things to criticize them for, and if you love the country's culture, you tend to downplay the failings of their politics.

They are somewhat independent, of course. Just because you like baseball doesn't mean that you forgive America's military interventionism. But I very much doubt that "love America's culture" and "okay with America's foreign policy" are uncorrelated variables.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | May 23, 2007 1:34 PM

The problem is that there's just not much evidence for his foreign policy views. He usually keeps himself to himself (officially) on issues outside economics, letting aides and political allies speak for him, and when he does speak he more or less toes the Blairite line but without quite the same messianic zeal. And the comments from his aides and allies are usually contradictory. So there's very little to go on, really. Who he names as foreign secretary will reveal a lot.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | May 23, 2007 1:44 PM

These people that attack others for opposing what the United States does think in terms of: "The United States is good, ipso facto whatever it does is good" ... including unilateral militarism.

It's "American exceptionalism" taken to it's not-so-logical conclusion: that the United States is incapable of evil, or that any evil it does is no vice because it's motives are pure and selfless. It's "the end justifies the means" taken to it's not-so-logical conclusion as well: motive is all that matters to them and excuses anything.

In their minds, you can't oppose what the United States does without somehow opposing the United States itself, because to them, there's no difference between the two ... or something like that.

Posted by Cameron Stone | May 23, 2007 2:33 PM

Great post. There really is no correlation between loving the culture and loving the foreign/colonial policy. Contrary to what David above might think, many anti-colonial activists -- especially in India -- were cultural anglophiles. It works the other way too: old fashioned British Tories dislike American popular culture, but for the most part welcomed a stronger American world presence.

To the extent Brown differs from Blair, it is that he will not buy the idea that any country has a mission in the world. It is also difficult to imagine him connecting personally with GWB. He will certainly try to influence Washington because he will recognize that that's where the power is.

Posted by Pithlord | May 23, 2007 4:11 PM

Ditto the great post comments. Nice, succinct encapsulation of the whole issue.

Posted by Warren | May 23, 2007 5:41 PM

Who he names as foreign secretary will reveal a lot.

It's presumed to be Straw again, isn't it? Given that he was booted for the astonishingly useless Caravan Beckett after saying that talk of nuking Iran was 'madness' (correct me if I'm wrong) that would be something of a signal. Now, he might surprise us all and promote Hilary Benn, but I can't see that.

But Brown himself has been as tight as the sphinx's backside on non-economic foreign policy.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 23, 2007 6:58 PM

The main temperamental difference between Blair and Brown is that Blair really is/was a neo-Gladstonian, and there's no sense of that kind of lofty paternalism in his approach to governance.

I think the 'Cape Cod' speculation actually misses the point: scratch the surface of Brown's career at the Treasury, and you find an interest in some elements of American economic policy: an independent central bank, tax credits over benefits, and private financing for public services.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 23, 2007 7:05 PM

Gordon Brown should rightly be famous for selling most all of the Bank of England's remaining gold, while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the bottom, in the $260 to $290 range.

I'm no gold bug and in the end the few tens of billions lost don't mean much. One can quickly get lost in the worst sort of conspiracy theories when dealing with gold and money. That doesn't mean one shouldn't dabble in it.

The biggest unreported story in the world, next to the command and control of Pakistan's nukes, is the gigantic, stupendous, outrageous and unprecedented (I'm using multiple adjectives in lieu of shouting) flood of money and credit inflating assets of almost all classes worldwide. Finance to an amazing degree is the economy now.

The world of finance is subject to systematic upsets and panics, as always. Don't be surprised if one happens in the next few years. If and when it does I guarantee Mr Browns gold sale will be mentioned in many an article. It would also be an excellent time to move out of Manhatten, and thank your lucky stars you don't own real estate there.

Posted by rapier | May 23, 2007 9:17 PM