Full Version: First Thatcher, now Blair?
Fox News story
As you may know, Tony Blair has been beset by controversy within his ruling Labour party. Many MPs and party members never fully supported the Iraq War in private, and only supported it in public based on the assurances that Blair gave at the time that Iraq had WMD that could be deployed inside 45 minutes against British interests.
Since that was blown open by the exposure of the 'dodgy dossier', criticism has increased. Many feel that Blair is too involved in international politics at the expense of domestic crises (be they real or whipped-up by the generally hostile British press) in immigration, housing, health and education. And that, even in his international adventures, he allies himself more closely with Presient Bush and with the recent Israeli incursion into Lebanon than many in Britain, and especially inside the Labour party, are comfortable with.
Couple this to a long-running internal party wrangle over the duumvirate of Blair and his treasury leader, Gordon Brown, who are commonly supposed to have done a deal before 1997 that Blair would hand over to Brown as leader after a single term in office, and you have a recipe for infighting.
From across the Atlantic, however, there seems to be a degree of mystification.
In vox pops for the British media, Blair is seen as a good and strong leader, and a friend to America. Like Thatcher (and perhaps Churchill?) before him, there seems to be bemused disappointment that the British would want to eject such a person from power.
From your own perspective, what is behind the British treatment of their leaders? Cultural differences? A flaw in the national character? Is it a strength or a weakness?
In the light of your answers to these, does international hostility to Bush, and the generally favourable international reception given to Clinton, become any easier to understand? How and why?
I'll kick off with my own thoughts - domestic politics always takes precedence over the international with domestic voters. It doesn't matter to British voters that Americans like Blair, any more than it mattered to US voters that the British (and other Europeans) generally liked Clinton. Domestic matters always play the trump card. The only mystery is why politicians so consistently take their eyes off the domestic ball for the glamour of the international stage.
Bush is in trouble now in the US because voters aren't happy with his domestic performance, as crystallised in his administration's response to hurricane Katrina. Before that, he pushed the necessary buttons with the electorate to stay popular. The only reason why long-standing Presidents don't get ejected by their parties or by Congress in mid-term more often in the USA is the useful constitutional provision that they can only serve two terms. Were that not in place, Republicans would have no compunction in ditching Bush as fast as the British Conservatives ditched Thatcher once she became an electoral liability, and they saw their own jobs placed in jeopardy by keeping the faith with their leader.
In that regard, the term limit is a service to the country (nobody is around long enough to really mess things up!) but at the expense of allowing past presidents a rosy glow that they don't necessarily deserve. The no-limits of the British system means that, in the words of the old sage, all politcal careers end in failure.
As you may know, Tony Blair has been beset by controversy within his ruling Labour party. Many MPs and party members never fully supported the Iraq War in private, and only supported it in public based on the assurances that Blair gave at the time that Iraq had WMD that could be deployed inside 45 minutes against British interests.
Since that was blown open by the exposure of the 'dodgy dossier', criticism has increased. Many feel that Blair is too involved in international politics at the expense of domestic crises (be they real or whipped-up by the generally hostile British press) in immigration, housing, health and education. And that, even in his international adventures, he allies himself more closely with Presient Bush and with the recent Israeli incursion into Lebanon than many in Britain, and especially inside the Labour party, are comfortable with.
Couple this to a long-running internal party wrangle over the duumvirate of Blair and his treasury leader, Gordon Brown, who are commonly supposed to have done a deal before 1997 that Blair would hand over to Brown as leader after a single term in office, and you have a recipe for infighting.
From across the Atlantic, however, there seems to be a degree of mystification.
In vox pops for the British media, Blair is seen as a good and strong leader, and a friend to America. Like Thatcher (and perhaps Churchill?) before him, there seems to be bemused disappointment that the British would want to eject such a person from power.
From your own perspective, what is behind the British treatment of their leaders? Cultural differences? A flaw in the national character? Is it a strength or a weakness?
In the light of your answers to these, does international hostility to Bush, and the generally favourable international reception given to Clinton, become any easier to understand? How and why?
I'll kick off with my own thoughts - domestic politics always takes precedence over the international with domestic voters. It doesn't matter to British voters that Americans like Blair, any more than it mattered to US voters that the British (and other Europeans) generally liked Clinton. Domestic matters always play the trump card. The only mystery is why politicians so consistently take their eyes off the domestic ball for the glamour of the international stage.
Bush is in trouble now in the US because voters aren't happy with his domestic performance, as crystallised in his administration's response to hurricane Katrina. Before that, he pushed the necessary buttons with the electorate to stay popular. The only reason why long-standing Presidents don't get ejected by their parties or by Congress in mid-term more often in the USA is the useful constitutional provision that they can only serve two terms. Were that not in place, Republicans would have no compunction in ditching Bush as fast as the British Conservatives ditched Thatcher once she became an electoral liability, and they saw their own jobs placed in jeopardy by keeping the faith with their leader.
In that regard, the term limit is a service to the country (nobody is around long enough to really mess things up!) but at the expense of allowing past presidents a rosy glow that they don't necessarily deserve. The no-limits of the British system means that, in the words of the old sage, all politcal careers end in failure.
A quick question that might bring some illumination on this issue:
Who was the last British Prime Minister to not be closely associated with the United States foreign policy?
Blair: obvious
John Major: close ally with George Bush during the first Gulf War.
Thatcher: again obvious close ties to Reagan.
Calligan: not particularly long lived (3 years) and the world was quiet at the time (except Ireland, of course)
Heath: pre-occupied with troubles in Ireland.
From your own perspective, what is behind the British treatment of their leaders? Cultural differences? A flaw in the national character? Is it a strength or a weakness?
I think that the Brits are the closest thing to Americans in Old Europe. I'd like to think that the Brits understand that standing with the United States has not only benefitted the UK, but the world as a whole. Certainly, all of the recent PMs have come to the conclusion that being a close ally of the US is a good thing, even if the press in Britain does not. I also think that the UK has a lingering respect for the US stemming from our involvement in WW2.
There has been a push on making sure that the British military is "compatible" with the US military.
So we have leaders from both major parties in the UK allying themselves closely with the US in recent decades. Meanwhile, the press and to a lessor extent the populace, may not agree.
Currently, Blair sees the importance of the War on Terror more clearly than any other world leader -- including President Bush. More importantly, he talks a much better game than Bush. His convictions and persuasiveness are much needed. I think the grumblings domestically over the involvement of the Brits in various actions around the world is precisely the reason he stayed on beyond his second term. Blair himself has always been hawkish, however. His leadership put Britain the in the center of the Kosovo war in 1998.
In the light of your answers to these, does international hostility to Bush, and the generally favourable international reception given to Clinton, become any easier to understand? How and why?
What does any of this have to do with Bush? Blair and Bush agree on certain aspects of the war on terror. That's about all. Bush's policies are fairly unpopular here and Blair's similar foreign policy are likewise fairly unpopular in the UK. Beyond that, what is there to understand? And how does Clinton fit in at all?
Who was the last British Prime Minister to not be closely associated with the United States foreign policy?
Blair: obvious
John Major: close ally with George Bush during the first Gulf War.
Thatcher: again obvious close ties to Reagan.
Calligan: not particularly long lived (3 years) and the world was quiet at the time (except Ireland, of course)
Heath: pre-occupied with troubles in Ireland.
From your own perspective, what is behind the British treatment of their leaders? Cultural differences? A flaw in the national character? Is it a strength or a weakness?
I think that the Brits are the closest thing to Americans in Old Europe. I'd like to think that the Brits understand that standing with the United States has not only benefitted the UK, but the world as a whole. Certainly, all of the recent PMs have come to the conclusion that being a close ally of the US is a good thing, even if the press in Britain does not. I also think that the UK has a lingering respect for the US stemming from our involvement in WW2.
There has been a push on making sure that the British military is "compatible" with the US military.
So we have leaders from both major parties in the UK allying themselves closely with the US in recent decades. Meanwhile, the press and to a lessor extent the populace, may not agree.
Currently, Blair sees the importance of the War on Terror more clearly than any other world leader -- including President Bush. More importantly, he talks a much better game than Bush. His convictions and persuasiveness are much needed. I think the grumblings domestically over the involvement of the Brits in various actions around the world is precisely the reason he stayed on beyond his second term. Blair himself has always been hawkish, however. His leadership put Britain the in the center of the Kosovo war in 1998.
In the light of your answers to these, does international hostility to Bush, and the generally favourable international reception given to Clinton, become any easier to understand? How and why?
What does any of this have to do with Bush? Blair and Bush agree on certain aspects of the war on terror. That's about all. Bush's policies are fairly unpopular here and Blair's similar foreign policy are likewise fairly unpopular in the UK. Beyond that, what is there to understand? And how does Clinton fit in at all?
From your own perspective, what is behind the British treatment of their leaders? Cultural differences? A flaw in the national character? Is it a strength or a weakness?
I get the distinct impression from the British that there is now a deep disatisfction just with being British, that the country is not happy at all, whether because of the ever swelling multicultural nature of the nation or because of the perceived right wing/conservative establishment or some other factor. I can't tell. I can't put my finger on any single cause for this perception, but its certainly coming across stronger and strong in the last five years or so since I left the UK.
My daily source of information regarding the UK is from BBC radio 4 and I can't but help notice just how far left wing that station has become. Even the comedy (especially the comedy) shows are full to the brim with what I can only term as barely concealed hatred for Tony Blair or anything that remotely resembles conservative politics. Other sources I have at my disposal, the internet, friends in the UK and ex pats in Denmark, whilst not united in displaying the same left wing bias, all still point towards a similar trend of extreme unhappiness in the UK.
Looking back on the UK and the many years I have lived there, two things strike me as being worth mentioning. The first is cultural. Of all the different people's I have experienced, no one complains as much, or is as 'hard done by' as the British (and just to really generalize, I include the Sccts, Irish and Welsh in that catagory. Basically every one who lives in the Britannic islands). Living in the UK both my GF and I, as well as the many international students and other foreigners we knew, were constantly aware of, and amused by, the insisent whining.
The second is 'geographical' I suppose, or perhaps 'socio-geographical'. Britain is seriously over crowded, dirty and worn down and is getting more so every day. Often travelling through Britain by train I was always overwhelmed by the endless suburbia and the sheer brutal monotony of brick built terraced houses, and roads cram-packed with cars, parked and driving, that just went on and on and on. My usual thought was, what a dump! I can't wait to get back to Denmark...
In the light of your answers to these, does international hostility to Bush, and the generally favourable international reception given to Clinton, become any easier to understand? How and why?
Certainly it does. The British, with their history of the last few centuries have dug themselves in to a very deep hole and as is their wont, do not want to recognize the reality of their situation, but prefer to complain about everyone else but themselves. No longer the great colonial power of the past, the British still love to tell every one else whats right and proper by any means possible, The BBC world service being an admirable example of this. The British today, like to go on about Clinton, but I lived in the UK during Clinton's years and I saw and heard the constant anti Americanism and glee over the Monica Lewinsky affair. Clinton was never accorded the repsect so many today say he was. He was considered an idiot American with his pants open and portrayed as such, daily.
Having now totally 'slagged off', the British, let me add that the mess of Britain is mirrored in France as well. In fact, the whining, moaning and self loathing that I found in the UK seems to be a European ailment that I see reflected right across the sub continent, the only unique aspect to the British is how they turn on their former darlings and betray them. Thatcher, Major and Blair have all been fairly decent politicians and the UK, despite is massive social problems, has actually flourished under them, but the problem remains. The British are not happy.
If any one thinks I am being overly hard on the British, let me add that I am quite fond of Britain, but like an old grandmother, I recognize her warts and bad habits but love her anyway. I have a feeling that I myself have changed upon my return to Denmark and the more complacent, conservative approach to life here has coloured my perception. I do try to take this into account though, I'm not blind to Denmark's faults either.
I've never met an American who reminded me of the British. Not one single time. The closest people in Europe to the Americans, in my experience, are the Germans. Easily.
I get the distinct impression from the British that there is now a deep disatisfction just with being British, that the country is not happy at all, whether because of the ever swelling multicultural nature of the nation or because of the perceived right wing/conservative establishment or some other factor. I can't tell. I can't put my finger on any single cause for this perception, but its certainly coming across stronger and strong in the last five years or so since I left the UK.
My daily source of information regarding the UK is from BBC radio 4 and I can't but help notice just how far left wing that station has become. Even the comedy (especially the comedy) shows are full to the brim with what I can only term as barely concealed hatred for Tony Blair or anything that remotely resembles conservative politics. Other sources I have at my disposal, the internet, friends in the UK and ex pats in Denmark, whilst not united in displaying the same left wing bias, all still point towards a similar trend of extreme unhappiness in the UK.
Looking back on the UK and the many years I have lived there, two things strike me as being worth mentioning. The first is cultural. Of all the different people's I have experienced, no one complains as much, or is as 'hard done by' as the British (and just to really generalize, I include the Sccts, Irish and Welsh in that catagory. Basically every one who lives in the Britannic islands). Living in the UK both my GF and I, as well as the many international students and other foreigners we knew, were constantly aware of, and amused by, the insisent whining.
The second is 'geographical' I suppose, or perhaps 'socio-geographical'. Britain is seriously over crowded, dirty and worn down and is getting more so every day. Often travelling through Britain by train I was always overwhelmed by the endless suburbia and the sheer brutal monotony of brick built terraced houses, and roads cram-packed with cars, parked and driving, that just went on and on and on. My usual thought was, what a dump! I can't wait to get back to Denmark...
In the light of your answers to these, does international hostility to Bush, and the generally favourable international reception given to Clinton, become any easier to understand? How and why?
Certainly it does. The British, with their history of the last few centuries have dug themselves in to a very deep hole and as is their wont, do not want to recognize the reality of their situation, but prefer to complain about everyone else but themselves. No longer the great colonial power of the past, the British still love to tell every one else whats right and proper by any means possible, The BBC world service being an admirable example of this. The British today, like to go on about Clinton, but I lived in the UK during Clinton's years and I saw and heard the constant anti Americanism and glee over the Monica Lewinsky affair. Clinton was never accorded the repsect so many today say he was. He was considered an idiot American with his pants open and portrayed as such, daily.
Having now totally 'slagged off', the British, let me add that the mess of Britain is mirrored in France as well. In fact, the whining, moaning and self loathing that I found in the UK seems to be a European ailment that I see reflected right across the sub continent, the only unique aspect to the British is how they turn on their former darlings and betray them. Thatcher, Major and Blair have all been fairly decent politicians and the UK, despite is massive social problems, has actually flourished under them, but the problem remains. The British are not happy.
If any one thinks I am being overly hard on the British, let me add that I am quite fond of Britain, but like an old grandmother, I recognize her warts and bad habits but love her anyway. I have a feeling that I myself have changed upon my return to Denmark and the more complacent, conservative approach to life here has coloured my perception. I do try to take this into account though, I'm not blind to Denmark's faults either.
QUOTE(Amlord)
I think that the Brits are the closest thing to Americans in Old Europe.
I've never met an American who reminded me of the British. Not one single time. The closest people in Europe to the Americans, in my experience, are the Germans. Easily.
QUOTE(moif @ Sep 15 2006, 10:03 AM) 
QUOTE(Amlord)
I think that the Brits are the closest thing to Americans in Old Europe.
I've never met an American who reminded me of the British. Not one single time. The closest people in Europe to the Americans, in my experience, are the Germans. Easily.
Just to clarify: I meant in regards to foreign policy. Britain's foreign policy has closely mirrored that of the US for quite some time, more so than any other European power.
Although British comedy is well liked by many in the US (not particularly by me, however).
QUOTE(Amlord)
Just to clarify: I meant in regards to foreign policy. Britain's foreign policy has closely mirrored that of the US for quite some time, more so than any other European power.
Although British comedy is well liked by many in the US (not particularly by me, however).
It is my patriotic duty to disagree with you I'm afraid. Although British comedy is well liked by many in the US (not particularly by me, however).
I'm probably being pedantic, but I don't see how Britains foreign policy is any different from Denmarks, or for that matter Germany's. Most of the core NATO country's have pretty much the same basic atttitude and support the USA when they can.
I think Britain comes across as being closer for several reasons. First of all, most Americans have a good idea where and who the British are. Sharing the same language is probably the main reason for this.
Second, Germany, Italy and France have a bad reputation due to the Second World War and together with the lack of a shared language casts them into the shadows and away from the public eye.
Then there is the military aspect. Britains armed forces, though considerably reduced in later years still enjoys a global network of colonial bases that allows Britain to extend its reach over and above its actual political weight, thus, Britain can extend its military to a greater extent than any other European nation and does so, not because it is in America's interests, but because it is in Britain's.
The French also do this, but again, the language barrier and the French reputation mean that French cooperation with the USA often goes unnoticed and unappreciated. No other European nation has the post colonial global reach of either the UK or France, but many are aligned with the USA, often far more so than the UK. Denmark is currently a perfect example of this.
As for the humour, the British and the Americnas are notoriously bad at learning other languages. In the UK (I don't know about the US) the Germans have a reputation for not having a sense of humour, but the rub is, how would they know?
British humour is often very funny, but the same is so for the Germans also and whilst the Germans can actually appreciate British humour, the sad fact is the British don't understand the Germans and don't get their jokes at all.
From your own perspective, what is behind the British treatment of their leaders? Cultural differences? A flaw in the national character? Is it a strength or a weakness?
Would have to agree with moif that the Brits love to complain. I frequent a few “football” message boards and a British ex-pat board and it’s clear they love to whine and will readily admit to the fact. However another casual observation, both from the boards and having spent “holiday” time with Brits, they are in general a very knowledgeable lot.
They seem to be very informed on current issues, both domestic and foreign and they know their world history well, way above the level of the average American. I believe their “worldliness” can be traced to a few factors. Their rich history, from early on being sacked every century and the fact they are an island nation with limited resources forced them to expand their empire and refine their diplomatic skills.
I’m not sure where their propensity to complain is rooted, maybe the weather or to moif’s point, the countryside is bleak, or maybe the combination. I know several Brits want to see the royal family dissolved as they see no “added value” on the modern geo-political stage whilst considering the enormous consumption of assets they require.
So when you have a populace that appears to make it a point to stay well informed, coupled with the whining factor, it’s almost a given the target of their angst will be against elected officials, deserved or not.
Wouldn’t consider any of this a flaw in the national character and certainly their propensity of staying well informed should only be considered a strength.
In the light of your answers to these, does international hostility to Bush, and the generally favourable international reception given to Clinton, become any easier to understand? How and why?
As mentioned, I think the Brits are generally more aware of the nuances regarding the international stage and understand that since we’re perceived as such close allies, as the Yanks go, so do the Brits.
The coziness of Blair/Bush has infuriated many Brits, they thought Blair should have stood on his own and consider him a lap dog whether it’s deserved or not. Since Bush has become so unpopular on the international stage, that close relationship with Blair has made him unpopular as well. And by all appearances the Brits seem more concerned how their leaders are perceived by the international community than their colonial counterparts.
I think the general attitude of the Brits towards Americans is like a younger, less mature cousin. Our arrogance is often mentioned, from silly things like the World Series when only one team outside of the States even participates, to our bungling foreign policy and the fact we pride ourselves in being the best democracy ever when our voter turn out is sickening. Many thought it was horrific when we re-elected Bush. One of the best socio-political “formulas” that I’ve seen came out of that discussion:
Relative affluence = widespread apathy = apolitical times
As far as comparing Clinton and Bush, many thought we severely over reacted to the Lewinsky affair. And one comment was something to the affect that if that’s the worse thing Clinton did during his tenure we should have changed the laws and elected him to two more terms. I’ve seen several comments that Clinton was more British with his foreign policy, preferring diplomacy over force.
And who knows, being an audiophile seems like a British birth right and maybe they appreciated the former president and his sax (that’s with an A).
Would have to agree with moif that the Brits love to complain. I frequent a few “football” message boards and a British ex-pat board and it’s clear they love to whine and will readily admit to the fact. However another casual observation, both from the boards and having spent “holiday” time with Brits, they are in general a very knowledgeable lot.
They seem to be very informed on current issues, both domestic and foreign and they know their world history well, way above the level of the average American. I believe their “worldliness” can be traced to a few factors. Their rich history, from early on being sacked every century and the fact they are an island nation with limited resources forced them to expand their empire and refine their diplomatic skills.
I’m not sure where their propensity to complain is rooted, maybe the weather or to moif’s point, the countryside is bleak, or maybe the combination. I know several Brits want to see the royal family dissolved as they see no “added value” on the modern geo-political stage whilst considering the enormous consumption of assets they require.
So when you have a populace that appears to make it a point to stay well informed, coupled with the whining factor, it’s almost a given the target of their angst will be against elected officials, deserved or not.
Wouldn’t consider any of this a flaw in the national character and certainly their propensity of staying well informed should only be considered a strength.
In the light of your answers to these, does international hostility to Bush, and the generally favourable international reception given to Clinton, become any easier to understand? How and why?
As mentioned, I think the Brits are generally more aware of the nuances regarding the international stage and understand that since we’re perceived as such close allies, as the Yanks go, so do the Brits.
The coziness of Blair/Bush has infuriated many Brits, they thought Blair should have stood on his own and consider him a lap dog whether it’s deserved or not. Since Bush has become so unpopular on the international stage, that close relationship with Blair has made him unpopular as well. And by all appearances the Brits seem more concerned how their leaders are perceived by the international community than their colonial counterparts.
I think the general attitude of the Brits towards Americans is like a younger, less mature cousin. Our arrogance is often mentioned, from silly things like the World Series when only one team outside of the States even participates, to our bungling foreign policy and the fact we pride ourselves in being the best democracy ever when our voter turn out is sickening. Many thought it was horrific when we re-elected Bush. One of the best socio-political “formulas” that I’ve seen came out of that discussion:
Relative affluence = widespread apathy = apolitical times
As far as comparing Clinton and Bush, many thought we severely over reacted to the Lewinsky affair. And one comment was something to the affect that if that’s the worse thing Clinton did during his tenure we should have changed the laws and elected him to two more terms. I’ve seen several comments that Clinton was more British with his foreign policy, preferring diplomacy over force.
And who knows, being an audiophile seems like a British birth right and maybe they appreciated the former president and his sax (that’s with an A).
From your own perspective, what is behind the British treatment of their leaders? Cultural differences? A flaw in the national character? Is it a strength or a weakness?
One significant element in the difference vis a vis Americans is the fact that the British PM can hang on as long as he likes, until the vagaries of the political process give him the boot. This is in marked contrast to an American President, who has at most 10 years, more likely 8 years, and then we know he's gone. For all their grumbling, whining, shrieking and complaining, almost all of those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome look forward with certitude to January 2009, when Bush packs his bags and heads back to Crawford. Not only can Blair stay as long as he likes, but even if he is sent packing, he can still return to 10 Downing without riding on the petticoats of his wife....
One of the upshots of this difference is that the level of "free floating resentment" towards the PM (or other UK leaders) can slowly ratchet up, and it can easily be fertilized by the uncertainty of WHEN is the bugger going to leave? I'm sure that some cultural factors can come into play as well, such as the far more hurley burley nature of the British press, but the electoral structural elements cannot be overlooked. Incidentally, I think its both a strength and a weakness.
In the light of your answers to these, does international hostility to Bush, and the generally favourable international reception given to Clinton, become any easier to understand? How and why?
Not really.
One significant element in the difference vis a vis Americans is the fact that the British PM can hang on as long as he likes, until the vagaries of the political process give him the boot. This is in marked contrast to an American President, who has at most 10 years, more likely 8 years, and then we know he's gone. For all their grumbling, whining, shrieking and complaining, almost all of those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome look forward with certitude to January 2009, when Bush packs his bags and heads back to Crawford. Not only can Blair stay as long as he likes, but even if he is sent packing, he can still return to 10 Downing without riding on the petticoats of his wife....
One of the upshots of this difference is that the level of "free floating resentment" towards the PM (or other UK leaders) can slowly ratchet up, and it can easily be fertilized by the uncertainty of WHEN is the bugger going to leave? I'm sure that some cultural factors can come into play as well, such as the far more hurley burley nature of the British press, but the electoral structural elements cannot be overlooked. Incidentally, I think its both a strength and a weakness.
In the light of your answers to these, does international hostility to Bush, and the generally favourable international reception given to Clinton, become any easier to understand? How and why?
Not really.
From your own perspective, what is behind the British treatment of their leaders? Cultural differences? A flaw in the national character? Is it a strength or a weakness?
In my observations Julian- there is a fundamental cultural difference in politics, leaders and organization of goverment- just look at debates in your legislative/executive sessions. Much more pointed, much more heated, etc. It is like the US, with our throwing off of royalty so many years ago, have tried to affect a sense of royalty and such in our goverment- whereas the British seem to really work at tearing down those royal "untouchable and respectfulness" barriers. Watch a British debate on BBC, and watch the same thing for thier US counterparts on C-span - MUCH less lively watching the C-span- heck, even mundane issues has many more lawmakers in thier seats than on the C-span equivilent LOL
I think the UK disdain for elected officials seems to be far more healthy, and far more evenly distributed, then in the US. Liberals in power? Time to bag on the liberals! Conservatives in power? Time to bag on the conservatives! - in America- it is currently "vogue" to call yourself conservative- and seem to have no real idea what that means- and give a "pass" to all conservatives in power, while pretty much giving all evils in the world to "liberals"- whereas, in the UK, it seems that you guys don't seem to give ANYONE a "freebie" like the right wingers give GW here today.
I would say even comparing US to UK is apples to oranges, with the exception of the language. Having travelled to UK and Europe many times now- the average US citizen is a complete idiot when compared to, well, any other western country and countrymen. Germans are, as moif said, the most US like culture- though far more educated of course, but, without a doubt, Germans are damn near identicle in many ways, and it is only the language that keeps US pop culture from realizing it.
In fact, I would say, if dating someone from another culture, US and German mates will do better with the cultural combination than US and UK groupings.
It is an odd thing to say, but I have observed this an awful lot- and, in fact, when I am doing a backpacker travel or a regular tourist "holiday"- I end up gravitating to the Germans myself. You travel enough, and you are a US citizen, I bet you do the same!
In the light of your answers to these, does international hostility to Bush, and the generally favourable international reception given to Clinton, become any easier to understand? How and why?
Quite frankly- it is a horrible comparison Julian. I would compare Clinton to Reagan as far as as this question goes- because GW is so very, very, very bad. He may very end up being considered the worst president in US history, by a landslide, in about 20 years or so. I think Clinton will just be a trivia question, but GW will be seen as possibly the one president that either led to a major reform in America, due to the hatred of his policies and rule, or a complete breakdown of the republic, due to his incredibly divisive rule.
I don't think Blair will ever be held with the same contempt as Thatcher, and for good reason- I can't think of any industry he has single handedly destroyed like Thatcher did with your coal industry?
- I believe he will be a minor blip in your countries radar as well, while GW will be our Napoleon.
In my observations Julian- there is a fundamental cultural difference in politics, leaders and organization of goverment- just look at debates in your legislative/executive sessions. Much more pointed, much more heated, etc. It is like the US, with our throwing off of royalty so many years ago, have tried to affect a sense of royalty and such in our goverment- whereas the British seem to really work at tearing down those royal "untouchable and respectfulness" barriers. Watch a British debate on BBC, and watch the same thing for thier US counterparts on C-span - MUCH less lively watching the C-span- heck, even mundane issues has many more lawmakers in thier seats than on the C-span equivilent LOL
I think the UK disdain for elected officials seems to be far more healthy, and far more evenly distributed, then in the US. Liberals in power? Time to bag on the liberals! Conservatives in power? Time to bag on the conservatives! - in America- it is currently "vogue" to call yourself conservative- and seem to have no real idea what that means- and give a "pass" to all conservatives in power, while pretty much giving all evils in the world to "liberals"- whereas, in the UK, it seems that you guys don't seem to give ANYONE a "freebie" like the right wingers give GW here today.
I would say even comparing US to UK is apples to oranges, with the exception of the language. Having travelled to UK and Europe many times now- the average US citizen is a complete idiot when compared to, well, any other western country and countrymen. Germans are, as moif said, the most US like culture- though far more educated of course, but, without a doubt, Germans are damn near identicle in many ways, and it is only the language that keeps US pop culture from realizing it.
In fact, I would say, if dating someone from another culture, US and German mates will do better with the cultural combination than US and UK groupings.
It is an odd thing to say, but I have observed this an awful lot- and, in fact, when I am doing a backpacker travel or a regular tourist "holiday"- I end up gravitating to the Germans myself. You travel enough, and you are a US citizen, I bet you do the same!
In the light of your answers to these, does international hostility to Bush, and the generally favourable international reception given to Clinton, become any easier to understand? How and why?
Quite frankly- it is a horrible comparison Julian. I would compare Clinton to Reagan as far as as this question goes- because GW is so very, very, very bad. He may very end up being considered the worst president in US history, by a landslide, in about 20 years or so. I think Clinton will just be a trivia question, but GW will be seen as possibly the one president that either led to a major reform in America, due to the hatred of his policies and rule, or a complete breakdown of the republic, due to his incredibly divisive rule.
I don't think Blair will ever be held with the same contempt as Thatcher, and for good reason- I can't think of any industry he has single handedly destroyed like Thatcher did with your coal industry?
- I believe he will be a minor blip in your countries radar as well, while GW will be our Napoleon.
we r a legendary nation. we have are moralistic, rich, powerful and have a great military and fine senes of culture.
Welcome to America's Debate, snoop dogg. You may want to peruse the Rules... all posts must be constructive and on topic. There is also a proscription against one-liners. Thanks, and enjoy your stay here.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.