It's The Hegemony, Stupid

Tom Friedman is really pissed off that people around the world take a dim view of the United States even though despite our flaws our government is less repressive than China's and we've had a much more constructive policy toward Zimbabwe than has South Africa. One wonders if he really doesn't understand this, but it's the hegemony, stupid. America has long sought to play a global leadership role, and under Bush has sought to play this role almost exclusively through methods of coercive domination. Under those circumstances of course America's sins and flaws look exaggerated. We can write self-congratulatory newspaper columns whining about this, or else we can try to put our policies and our position in the geopolitical structure on a more sustainable basis.

Somehow, I don't think the whining option is going to do anyone much good. Greenwald has more on this that's valuable.

Comments

You know, before Bush they actually kinda liked America around the world. So contrary to what Friedman suggests, I don't think it is that the world would like us to be more like Russia or China. I think the world would just like us to be more like the way we used to be.

Posted by DTM | July 16, 2008 2:01 PM

Remember in 2004 when Bush claimed that he and the US were looked upon favorably by the rest of the world? Good times.

Posted by freddiemac | July 16, 2008 2:02 PM

Tom Friedman is irrelevant. Period.

From the article:

"But there was something truly filthy about Russia’s and China’s vetoes of the American-led U.N. Security Council effort to impose targeted sanctions on Robert Mugabe’s ruling clique in Zimbabwe."

And of course Friedman doesn't have any problem about countless vetoes by the US when it comes to the genocidal apartheid regime of Israel.

He should just focus on writing crappy books consumed by folks with low intellects. That his calling really.

Posted by Hameed | July 16, 2008 2:08 PM

They should be grateful we don't crush them. I'm always grateful when I don't get crushed.

Posted by Njorl | July 16, 2008 2:10 PM

One wonders if he really doesn't understand this, but it's the hegemony, stupid. America has long sought to play a global leadership role, and under Bush has sought to play this role almost exclusively through methods of coercive domination.

What nonsense.

The U.S. is by far the most powerful nation in the world, economically, politically, militarily, and culturally. Many people in other countries, especially Europe, deeply resent this fact, especially in light of their own declining power and influence. They may try to rationalize their resentment by talking about Iraq, but the root cause is simply the fact that we're Number One and have no serious rivals.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 2:25 PM

It is just so UNFAIR that people don't hold the US to the same standards as S. Africa and China!

-Friedman, age 4

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | July 16, 2008 2:26 PM

The fact that Friedman asks this question is the answer.

He's so obsessed with his little pundit-y pet theories about "the world being flat" (terrible, repetitive book). He doesn't stop to think how the pundits (or heck, average citizens) of other countries view the U.S.

Yelping "America is the tops! Even if we have a few flaws" is kind of pointless when you spend your entire career ignoring thosee flaws and amping up the praise.

Posted by some guy | July 16, 2008 2:27 PM

It always strikes me as silly when people scold poll respondents, domestic or international. "Stop thinking things I don't like!"

Posted by Jake H. | July 16, 2008 2:36 PM

Mixner-

Your theory looks more like nonsense to me.

European favorability ratings for the US have declined precipitously since 2000:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

This is consistent with Yglesias' take, but not yours.

Posted by Steve | July 16, 2008 2:37 PM

The U.S. is by far the most powerful nation in the world, economically, politically, militarily, and culturally. Many people in other countries, especially Europe, deeply resent this fact, especially in light of their own declining power and influence. They may try to rationalize their resentment by talking about Iraq, but the root cause is simply the fact that we're Number One and have no serious rivals.

Er, OK. Though the data you cite (i.e. nothing) is incredibly compelling, weren't we also Number One before? Do you have some sort of explanation of why worldwide opinion on the U.S. has worsened during the Bush Presidency, as shown by this Pew study cited by Greenwald? http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256

Is it because we're even MORE awesome than we were, and the rest of the world is even suckier?

Posted by Jake H. | July 16, 2008 2:41 PM

I find a lot of the Euro and Canadian complaints a bit too much to take. It was the Russians and the French (not the US) that supplied Saddam with much of his military during the Iraq-Iran war that was respondsible for so many deaths.

These people also seemed to have forgotten about all the countries the US bombed under Clinton and the people who died under Clinton supported sanctions (remember Albright's comments about 500,000 deaths being worth it)

It is standard procedure to blame outside forces for what is wrong, Europeans blame the US, people in the US blame immigrants from Mexico or the wily Chinese.

Posted by DougEFresh | July 16, 2008 2:45 PM

Steve,

See, back in 2000, people around the world didn't really grasp how Number Oney America really was. Rather, it took Mixner's boy Bush to reveal the awesome Number Oneiness of America to the world. That explains why it was only after Bush took office that world opinion of America began to crash--before then they kept confusing us with some two-bit country like Canada.

Posted by DTM | July 16, 2008 2:45 PM

Sounds like Thomas's Friedman unit is small....

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | July 16, 2008 2:47 PM

Yglesias: It's the hegemony, stupid.

Mixner: What nonsense. The U.S. is by far the most powerful nation in the world, economically, politically, militarily, and culturally...the root cause [of resentment] is simply the fact that we're Number One and have no serious rivals.

Merriam Webster:

he ge mo ny (n)

1. preponderant influence or authority over others; domination
2. the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group

FAIL.

Posted by scythia | July 16, 2008 2:48 PM

scythia,

"Fail" what? If you think you have a point, then state it.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 3:03 PM

"Coercive domination" hmm, I don't recall us helping the victims of the Tsunami coercively. Or all the AIDs aid in Africa was not given coercively. They can hate us all they want, but we still manage to do the right thing.

Posted by Judd | July 16, 2008 3:13 PM

Er, OK. Though the data you cite (i.e. nothing) is incredibly compelling,

Er, in which of the areas I listed do you dispute that we are Number One?

Do you have some sort of explanation of why worldwide opinion on the U.S. has worsened during the Bush Presidency,

A combination of genuine, informed opposition to U.S. foreign policy under Bush, misrepresentations of that policy and other aspects of the United States by foreign media and political elites, and the reminder of just how much more powerful the U.S. is than any other nation that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have provided. Resentment in other countries at the power and independence of the United States did not magically appear when Bush became president. It's always been there. When we flex our muscles, other countries are reminded just how weak they are by comparison, and naturally they don't like to be reminded of that. Especially old imperial nations of Europe, who have yet to clean up the messes they created through their own foreign adventures.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 3:15 PM

These people also seemed to have forgotten about all the countries the US bombed under Clinton and the people who died under Clinton supported sanctions (remember Albright's comments about 500,000 deaths being worth it)

Ah, but killing 500,000 children through disease and malnutrition caused by sanctions is not of any great concern. It's only when you do it through military action that it really becomes objectionable.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 3:19 PM

"Fail" what?

Reading comprehension.

Posted by scythia | July 16, 2008 3:20 PM

In all my travels, I have yet to encounter the mythical "we hate America because we're jealous" philosophy. For the most part, people seem to like Americans, it's the policies of our government that they have problems with. And it usually isn't Iraq that angers them. In Laos, farmers are furious with our rice subsidies. In Vietnam, it's tarrifs and import restrictions. In India, it's our support of Pakistan. In New Zealand, it's our approach to global warming and ozone. In all of these cases, the people have very legitimate gripes. Now Turkey, of course, is angry about the Iraq war. But that's because it has inflamed the Kurdish terrorists in their country and threatens their water (again, a legitimate gripe). I have also met some very angry soldiers in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic (or Czechoslovakia if you're John McCain). But these soldiers were being sent to Iraq and didn't want to fight our war for us. One Czech soldier even tried to beat the crap out of me, but was stopped by his commanding officer. Now, if ANY of the people I've talked to had bogus complaints, I might buy the "jealousy" argument. But that hasn't been the case. When a rice farmer in Laos can't afford to plant rice because of our subsidies, he goes hungry and his children don't go to school. That's a real problem and not jealousy.

Posted by fostert | July 16, 2008 3:21 PM

Re Hameed

"And of course Friedman doesn't have any problem about countless vetoes by the US when it comes to the genocidal apartheid regime of Israel."

Mr. Hameed is a murdering rapist.

Posted by SLC | July 16, 2008 3:29 PM

FAIL, Mixner, because you disagreed with Matt that people disliked the US because of hegemony, and then proceeded to explain that they disliked the US because, to paraphrase you based on the dictionary definition Scythia provided, it exercises hegemony. Your "The U.S. is by far the most powerful nation in the world, economically, politically, militarily, and culturally" is, essentially, saying the US is a hegemon.

Posted by John | July 16, 2008 3:30 PM

Jake H.,

See, it is all so obvious. People all around the world actually resented "the power and independence of the United States" all along. But apparently they had forgotten they resented the power and independence of the United States as of 2000. So, they had to be reminded they resented the power and independence of the United States by President Bush. In that sense, he was just furthering the world along the path to self-actualization!

Of course this is nonsense. If the world had any doubts about our military advantages, they were wiped away by Kosovo. So Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrating our military prowess (assuming they actually did that, which is debatable) isn't the explanation for our crashing poll numbers. The world just really don't like our policies under Bush.

Posted by DTM | July 16, 2008 3:36 PM

In all my travels, I have yet to encounter the ... "we hate America because we're jealous" philosophy.

Well you wouldn't, would you? Few people are likely to admit to such a motive. They rationalize it with claims about policy and behavior.

For the most part, people seem to like Americans, it's the policies of our government that they have problems with. And it usually isn't Iraq that angers them. In Laos, farmers are furious with our rice subsidies. In Vietnam, it's tarrifs and import restrictions.

Really? Then since the left seeks to preserve or increase subsidies, tariffs and other policies that privilege American workers, in the name of "fair" trade and protecting American jobs, we should expect foreign resentment at our trade policies to increase under more liberal administrations.

In India, it's our support of Pakistan. In New Zealand, it's our approach to global warming and ozone.

Since our support for Pakistan and our approach to global warming and ozone have not changed significantly since the Clinton Administration, this also seems rather implausible.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 3:37 PM

"John",

Er, you forgot this one:

Hegemony: aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.

Matthew was obviously referring to what he considers to be particular hegemonic actions by the United States (his ludicrous "coercive domination") rather than simply our status as the most powerful nation in the world.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 3:45 PM

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hegemony

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Hegemony%3A+aggression+or+expansionism+by+large+nations+in+an+effort+to+achieve+world+domination%22&btnG=Google+Search

Posted by scythia | July 16, 2008 3:56 PM

Since our support for Pakistan and our approach to global warming and ozone have not changed significantly since the Clinton Administration, this also seems rather implausible.

Attitudes toward global warming have changed around the world since the Clinton administration. What was then an academic issue about potentials is now having noticeable effects in India and other places. Since we are the worst offenders in terms of carbon emissions and have refused to play ball vis-a-vis Kyoto, attitudes toward America have changed.

Posted by RoboticGhost | July 16, 2008 4:01 PM

Why does Friedman have a job?

Posted by dcblogger | July 16, 2008 4:04 PM

"You know, before Bush they actually kinda liked America around the world."

Hell, even during Bush they actually kinda liked America around the world. I was studying in Germany in the summer of 2002. We'd invaded Afghanistan, but not yet Iraq. The Germans I talked to generally thought Bush was an idiot, but were supportive of us, and really sympathetic about 9/11.

I do remember one particular conversation I had about the UN. If I remember correctly a German woman had asked me what Americans thought of going to the UN about the Iraq issue. I replied that yeah, we would probably try to get some sanctions, but that a lot of Americans considered the UN to be weak and useless, and probably would act regardless. She was horrified. That conversation is near the top of my list of "Things I wish I'd been wrong about."

Posted by Tel | July 16, 2008 4:14 PM

Truth is, most people in most places like America, but they don't fancy the criminal torturing warmongers who currently run the place. It's not the fact that America is powerful, it's the aggressive and unprovoked abuse of power that is resented across the world. A little more diplomacy and a little less torture would go a long way in soothing that resentment.

The reason why Obama is so wildly popular everywhere else, though people outside the US hardly know who he is, is that they trust he will stop the abuse and uphold the moral standards that America itself has done most to help establish in international politics. There's still a strong belief that the US is better than its current government. But that belief will incur irreversible damage at some point, if the country continues on the current path for another eight years, which would be bad for the US and the rest of the world.

Posted by gr | July 16, 2008 4:33 PM

Mixner apparently is Professor X connected to Cerebro who can read everyone's minds in the world and know they are wrong. There's a word for people who think everyone is after them and, contra Woody Allen, that word is not perceptive.

""Coercive domination" hmm, I don't recall us helping the victims of the Tsunami coercively. Or all the AIDs aid in Africa was not given coercively. They can hate us all they want, but we still manage to do the right thing.

Posted by Judd | July 16, 2008 3:13 PM"

No, but requiring that we require AIDS clinics in Africa to buy expensive American drugs instead of cheaper Indian or Brazilian equivalents is coercive. Telling hospitals and clinics around the world that receive American funding and are located in places where the local economy and environment can't support more people that doctors, nurses and volunteers aren't allowed to mention family planning is coercive. Bush's AIDS aid has just been a Potemkin village.

Also, invading another country for no real reason and killing hundreds of thousands (perhaps even a million) while torturing innocent people is coercive.

Posted by Reality Man | July 16, 2008 4:52 PM

"Since our support for Pakistan and our approach to global warming and ozone have not changed significantly since the Clinton Administration, this also seems rather implausible."

Hardly. The Indians hated our policies even more under Clinton. They don't really like Bush, but they think his policies towards India are an improvement over Clinton's.

"Really? Then since the left seeks to preserve or increase subsidies"

Well, this is one liberal that hates farm subsidies. But farm subsidies have solid bipartisan support. And, in Laos, they really don't see any difference between Bush and previous administrations.

"tariffs and other policies that privilege American workers,"

Umm, Bush increased tarrifs on Vietnam (conservatives still can't accept Vietnam as legitimate), whereas Clinton opened up Vietnam to trade. They hate Bush there, but Clinton is a rock star there.

All I'm saying here is that people really do base their opinions on actual issues, and not jealousy. And in some countries like India, their opinions about us have improved as our policies have improved (yes Bush deserves credit there). Interestingly, the only country where people seem to be at all jealous of us is India (they all seem to want to move here), and they like our policies more now than ever.

Posted by fostert | July 16, 2008 4:53 PM

Mixner:

"A combination of genuine, informed opposition to U.S. foreign policy under Bush..."

Hey! I thought that part was nonsense! What happened to the cause being simply our number-oneiness?

Posted by Steve | July 16, 2008 4:57 PM

Enough with the bashing of Tom Friedman. I would have agreed with you 90% of the time that his columns are pretty banal.

But today's column is for some of you on the left, who do not like American hegemony, to be aware of what could replace it. Multilateralism when operating within reasonable limits, is a good thing. But China and Russia have consistently shown that they have no boundaries when it comes to self interest. If we all cannot agree that Mugabe's recent actions have been reprehensible I think there is little we can agree on.

Posted by Nara | July 16, 2008 5:02 PM

Enough with the bashing of Tom Friedman. I would have agreed with you 90% of the time that his columns are pretty banal.

But today's column is for some of you on the left, who do not like American hegemony, to be aware of what could replace it. Multilateralism when operating within reasonable limits, is a good thing. But China and Russia have consistently shown that they have no boundaries when it comes to self interest. If we all cannot agree that Mugabe's recent actions have been reprehensible I think there is little we can agree on.

Posted by Nara | July 16, 2008 5:03 PM

fostert brings up a good point. Conservatives seem to think that Reagan's popularity in a lot of Eastern Europe is legitimate, but Clinton's popularity in Kosovo is illegitimate and Bush's unpopularity everywhere is illegitimate. When you dismiss entire countries as "Old Europe" and use them as political punching bags (Paris is definitely one of the Right's bogeymen), of course people will hate you.

Ironically, while a lot of Indians hated Clinton's policies towards India after the nuclear test, they did like that Clinton showed actual respect for India in how he put on the sanctions. He took India seriously at the time, treated major Indian political figures respectfully and spent about a week there during the aftermath (as opposed to less than a day in Pakistan). Even when people don't like your policies, they can at least respectfully disagree if you do so likewise.

Posted by Reality Man | July 16, 2008 5:04 PM

Of course Mugabe's reign is reprehensible.

But really - Friedman concludes:

"So, yes, we’re not so popular in Europe and Asia anymore. I guess they would prefer a world in which ... the desperate voices for change in Zimbabwe would, well, just shut up."

There is just no basis for this conclusion, and Friedman's determination to reach it anyway speaks poorly for his perspicacity, or his honesty.

Posted by Steve | July 16, 2008 5:16 PM

friedman says
"An America that presides over Abu Ghraib, torture and Guantánamo Bay deserves a thumbs-down.
But America is not and never has been just about those things"

Oh please. During most of the cold war (and even before that)america cheerfully supported and helped just the sort of brutal dictatorships that mugabe represents.

The main difference is that in the last few years america has started using the same techniques as those governments.

And at least the russians and chinese have the decency not to insult those of us in the rest of the world by bleating on(and on and on and on ) about how special and uniquely fond of freedom and liberty they are,and how without the US their countries might be invaded and have their civilan populations being murdered and tortured by foreign soldiers.

Posted by rb | July 16, 2008 5:27 PM

The silly glibertarian boy, once more embarrassing himself in public, seems to think that hegemony is what you pay chicken farmers.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 16, 2008 5:39 PM

There was a book out recently which is based on a massive public opinion poll of Muslims throughout the world.

There was no "we hate America" at all. It was all "US policies suck."

Mixner is just doing his daily trolling again.

"But China and Russia have consistently shown that they have no boundaries when it comes to self interest."

Like the US has shown any boundaries.

"If we all cannot agree that Mugabe's recent actions have been reprehensible I think there is little we can agree on."

If we cannot agree that Saddam Hussein's recent actions - i.e., in the 1980's when the US directly supported him in his war against Iran - have been reprehensible I think there is little we can agree on.

Pathetically ignorant post.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 16, 2008 5:40 PM

Please guys, not just the fuckwit foreign policy. On top of everything else, respect was further undermined by World TV screens being filled with the utter incompetence of the Katrina response - for three days running the BBC newsman was reporting from next to the same floating corpse that had yet be collected for burial - and eurojaws were dropping to the floor. Respect needs to be earned, and you govt lost it. Freidman? Beyond parody.

Posted by jp | July 16, 2008 6:14 PM

You nailed it, Matt.

As a citizen of one of the awful, dictator-enabling countries mentioned in Friedman's article (South Africa), I can say that many South Africans are equally pissed off with Mbeki's outrageous support of Mugabe - which is a major reason why Zuma (who is unfortunately reprehensible for other reasons) will shortly be taking over Mbeki's job. After all, we have to live with the consequences of our disappointing president sitting on his hands - to wit, 4 million illegal Zimbabwean immigrants and a massive surge in crime.

Politically conscious South Africans are also, for the most part, are PO'd at China's continued occupation of Tibet, Israel's Apartheid-like occupation of the West Bank, the indiscriminate brutality of many Palestinian freedom-fighters which makes them so unlovable, oppressed as they are, the UK's gradual slide towards a police state, Russia's compromised democracy, the Colombian government's support-through-inaction for right-wing militias, Chavez' at times embarrassing populism (if you're a sensible left-liberal) et al.

But we are especially PO'd at the US because many of us actually believed Reagan's rhetoric about a "Shining City on the Hill" (although with the flood of information provided by the Internet, equally as many now realise that even Reagan was an asswipe who waged wars of aggression on democratically elected governments). And that much diminished faith in and respect for the US was in no small part responsible for America's success. It wasn't just American innovation (which was considerable), it was also the people of other nations willingly participating in the creation of Pax Americana, perhaps naively.

As of now I have known about 15 or 16 highly educated people who made America their home. The USA has long benefited from a constant influx of highly skilled individuals who saw it as the centre of the scientific and business worlds. It has also benefited from an default amount of credibility for all of the brands it exported, credibility that the brands of other countries had to earn the hard way. The Oscars is not simply an American event, its a global event, as is the US Masters and even the 4th of July, about which we have seen so many movies.

So we were willing to give America our best and brightest, for decades, and ignore the occasional stomping on third world nations that in truth didn't really deserve it. Then along came Bush, who I shall call Fauvel henceforth.

Fauvel exposed the sick heart of American politics and even highlighted the long decay that anticipated his arrival, the massive consolidation of media, the absence of real political choices, the complete victory of marketing over idealism. Fauvel lied, cheated, stole, tortured and murdered in plain sight. For a period, even many seemingly decent quarters of American society condoned and made excuses for Fauvel, taking surprisingly long to express buyer's remorse. Fauvel stomped all over the international law which America helped forge and his predecessor Reagan had already started discretely chipping away at over the Nicaraguan issue.

And throughout all of this, Fauvel held his administrations middle finger erect in the face of an outraged word. Fauvel's America has been like a lover that you sacrificed so much for, for so long, who then doesn't merely jilt you but does everyone imaginable to make you aware that they're taking half your fortune and fucking your best friend and you're powerless to do anything about it.

Most of the developed and emerging markets in the world are like the wronged other half of that relationship, while, if I may stretch the metaphor a bit further, the Mugabe's and so on of this world are more like the bully down the road and round the corner, regional nuisances that do not impinge so intimately on the consciousnesses and consciences of the same individuals. Because make no mistake, America achieved that hegemony with the help of a great many non-Americans.

Posted by Farren | July 16, 2008 6:20 PM

Some people might want to have a look at these Pew stats linked by Greenwald.

Highlights (comparing favourable views towards the US 2000/2007):

Germany 78/30
Turkey 52/9
Indonesia 75/29
Argentina 50/16
Britain 83/51

Now, to a rational person applying Occam's Razor and a bit of common sense the answer should be obvious...

Posted by novakant | July 16, 2008 6:54 PM

Attitudes toward global warming have changed around the world since the Clinton administration. What was then an academic issue about potentials is now having noticeable effects in India and other places. Since we are the worst offenders in terms of carbon emissions and have refused to play ball vis-a-vis Kyoto, attitudes toward America have changed.

Global warming had become a real-world (not "academic") issue long before Bush took office. Kyoto also predates Bush. The Clinton Administration refused to present the treaty to Congress for ratification.

Foreign hostility towards the U.S. associated with its position on global warming seems to be limited mainly to political and social elites in certain developed nations. I don't think the vast majority of people in the developing world could give a rat's ass about it. They're too busy trying to develop their economies and improve their standard of living to have the luxury of worrying about global warming.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 7:31 PM

"Farren"

As of now I have known about 15 or 16 highly educated people who made America their home. The USA has long benefited from a constant influx of highly skilled individuals who saw it as the centre of the scientific and business worlds.

America is the center of the scientific and business worlds. Your acquaintances "saw it" as such because it is such.

It has also benefited from an default amount of credibility for all of the brands it exported, credibility that the brands of other countries had to earn the hard way. The Oscars is not simply an American event, its a global event, as is the US Masters and even the 4th of July, about which we have seen so many movies.

What the hell is "default credibility" supposed to mean? No one is forcing you to watch American movies or sporting events or to follow American popular culture. You do it because you choose to, because we're simply much better at producing those things than anyone else.

So we were willing to give America our best and brightest, for decades,

Ha ha ha ha ha! "Willing to give...?" You mean, you didn't actually make it a crime for your people to emigrate to America. Does this mean you're now contemplating such laws, as in the USSR? Can we expect that future U.S. immigrants from South Africa will have to sneak out of your country and defect, because you're no longer "willing" to "give" them to us?

I hate to break it to you, but people have been leaving South Africa and coming to the U.S. because they realize they can make a better life for themselves and their families over here.

I suggest you attend to your own problems, most obviously the terrible legacy of apartheid and the appalling racial divisions in your country. Maybe then you'll be in a position to lecture the United States.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 7:50 PM

"Under those circumstances of course America's sins and flaws look exaggerated."

Exaggerated? What other country in the last 20 or 30 years has launched an illegal war of aggression based entirely on a hoax publicized at the United Nations that ended up taking a million lives and leaving a legacy of torture as an official policy?

How is it possible to exaggerate that kind of sin?

Posted by The Fool | July 16, 2008 8:05 PM

I may be running out of forums where I can say such things, but Mixner and Tom Friedman should crawl up each other's asses and die. They're both extreme fucking idiots.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 16, 2008 9:31 PM

Judd,

The development aid given by the USA would've been impressive if the people you asked to be impressed by that didn't just do that as well but also gave double the amount, without all the limitations mandated by the USA.

Right now that sound like volunteering to work half a shift in a soup kitchen and afterwards bragging to the people who worked a full shift how good you where.

Sure the USA did good in those cases, but you can hardly ask the rest of the world to overlook the negative things based on that. After all those other usually also did the same good things. And either didn't do bad things at all, or didn't get theirs overlooked either.

Posted by ernst | July 16, 2008 11:12 PM

It's an old but simple truth - better than bad is not the same as good. That's what Friednman doesn't get. On the issue of torture, damage to civil liberties and suppression of free speech and assembly, not to mention corruption, incompetence and public dishonesty by elected officials... well, I'd say the US is making up its China deficit with impressive speed. Add in the perversion of science and environmental damage wrought by Bush, and you have a pretty repellent concoction.

Posted by mcilroy | July 16, 2008 11:57 PM

fostert,

For the most part, people seem to like Americans, it's the policies of our government that they have problems with.

This is also pretty incoherent. There is no clear division between the policies of our government and the will of the American people. America is a democracy. We elect our presidents. We elect our congressmen. We elected George Bush, twice. The second time after we had invaded Iraq. We elected the congressmen who voted to invade Iraq. Polling data showed pretty clearly that a large majority of Americans favored invading Iraq. Polls also show majority or widespread public support by Americans for other policies and views that foreigners typically cite to rationalize their jealousy and resentment of us, like the death penalty, and skepticism about global warming, and opposition to the International Criminal Court, and cynicism about the U.N.

So for foreigners to claim that they have no problem with the American people but only with the American government doesn't make much sense.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 12:31 AM

Shorter Mixner: what foreigners hate about America are fucking idiots like me, regardless of whether they're being fucking idiots in government or being fucking idiots on the internet.

Posted by Mixnermatosis | July 17, 2008 12:50 AM

Mixner, what's it like to be the center of the universe?

Posted by Reality Man | July 17, 2008 1:45 AM

"So for foreigners to claim that they have no problem with the American people but only with the American government doesn't make much sense.

Posted by Mixner | July 17, 2008 12:31 AM"

My god, socializing with you sounds like a nightmare. Unless you hate somebody completely, you're incoherent. What?

Posted by Reality Man | July 17, 2008 1:54 AM

Mixner,

Farren is my real name, so the scare quotes aren't necessary.

If you paused for a moment and thought about what I wrote instead of mulishly shoving your inbred underbite up in my face you'd realise that mocking people like me is the response of an idiot.

Because its idiots like you who that drive the aforementioned best and brightest to leave America (at least two of the aforementioned best and brightest, biologists both, have left for Europe because of the right's war on science), and to cease immigrating to your fair shores.

And it is fools like you who have tarnished some of the US' best-known brands, which are seen in many parts of the world as representative of its political failings and are being punished accordingly.

You're an fool, mixner, from whom I can learn nothing. You can "break" whatever you want to me, it makes as much impression as the sound of wind breaking from the ass of a mule. A few years back I might have considered taking my considerable IT skills to the States. Now Europe or New Zealanad will benefit if I ever decide to leave.

Posted by farren | July 17, 2008 2:12 AM

I gather Freedman also said that "when it comes to pure, rancid moral corruption, no one can top South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki". Huh!? Now I am no great fan of Mbeki, in fact I consider him a huge disappointment and an ultimately ineffectual leader. But the above statement really goes completely over the top. Let's see if I can think of a few cases ... How about: Uribe, Olmert, Musharaf, Mubarak? And notice: they are all clients of US, the home of pure, rancid greed, bigotry and stupidity.

Posted by Gerhard Kleinhans | July 17, 2008 5:31 AM

Mixner, you're embarrassing yourself.

Posted by Tyro | July 17, 2008 10:35 AM

Re Gerhard Kleinhans

Excuse me, Mr. Mbekis' swallowing of the HIV doesn't cause AIDS coolaid is totally beyond contempt. This embrace of pseudoscience will cause more harm to people in South Africa then anything that Uribe, Olmert, Musharaf, or Mubarak have done in their countries.

Posted by SLC | July 17, 2008 4:20 PM

RE: DTM

Most of the world liked the US through the 90s in spite of the meddling we'd done overseas since WWII, and despite some of our oppressive economic policies re: free trade and subsidies, which I found somewhat surprising. I'd like to see America return to the Panama Canal building days, where we took on massive projects not merely for profit.

Posted by Charles | July 18, 2008 11:17 AM

My god, what a thread!!!

1. People around the world don't either hate or like the U.S. Most hate some aspects, love others, and are indifferent to most.

2. Of COURSE Bush led to a decline in public opinion of the U.S. around the world. Bush has shown the world an America unrestrained: an America willing to crush the world for its own immediate interests; an America blind to the fact that it must live in that same world.

3. Mixner is *somewhat* right in pointing out that the split between disliking America but not Americans is inconsistent; but few people can claim to be perfectly consistent. Simple fact: Most people dislike America, but like most Americans, EVEN IF IT'S INCONSISTENT TO DO SO.

4. America is not, has never been, and never will be #1. That would imply that the world works like "American Idol". America is a leader in the world, but it is PART of the world, and depends on it as much as the world depends on America. This obsession that some Americans have about themselves is quite pathetic, really. It's pretty obvious that someone who shouts "We're number one!" at the top of their lungs does so because of fundamental sexual insecurities...

Posted by DR | July 18, 2008 11:56 AM

SLC:

Bush doesn't really believe that HIV causes AIDS either. That would imply that he actually believes the science that showed that HIV caused AIDS. But that science is totally dependent on the theory of Evolution. But since Bush and nearly half of Americans don't believe there is such thing as Evolution, then they can't possibly believe that HIV causes AIDS, no?

Posted by DR | July 18, 2008 12:01 PM