The Patriotism thread sparked this one. I would have liked to say more, but would have gone off-topic to do so. Specifically this portion of post number 28:

Apparently, the world thinks better of Americans than it used to with a rip-roaring 36 percent positive now. Germany, France, Japan and the EU top the list. We've made it a point below Russia in esteem, but a little above North Korea (next in line)on the positive side, though we're apparently a bit more negative than the DPRK too according to this list....

Questions to be debated:
Do you agree with the above list? Please support your answer.
Why do you think the US is represented as it is?
Other related thoughts?

I hope I'm not misinterpreting the questions to be debated but here is my two cents (and maybe with the economy the way it is we should change that phrase lol). I don't agree with this particular list. I agree that over the past 8 years America has done a lot to cause our popularity (for lack of a better word) to decline; but I can't see how we could be that far below China. Yes we've angered the world in our own little way; but are we really as bad as China and Russia? On one hand I don't know how we could be below them. On the other hand one might argue that Gitmo and the Iraq War isn't much different oppression of political dissidents in China or the crisis in Tibet. I think a big contributor to our placement on this list is our Unilateral approach to foreign policy. By acting unilaterally much of the world gets the message that we don't care what they think nor do we need their support. While I probably wouldn't rate us as the coolest kid in town we are much cooler than China and Russia.

Do you agree with the above list? Please support your answer.

Do I agree that the poll reflects how the rest of the world views the US or do I agree with the ranking?

First question first: The poll sample was fairly hefty as such things go, so I'm guessing it reflects general overall global sentiments to some degree.The 34 countries selected for polling were not, perhaps, as representative as they could be, though: only three African, three South American, and no central European countries were included, while the whole of North America was polled. No Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Syria, or Pakistan, either, so Islamic opinion is represented by countries like Egypt, Turkey and Indonesia. I expect these geographic imbalances gave some countries higher positives or lower negatives, especially since the unweighted sample size was roughly the same in each country (1004 Panamanians, and 1000 Chinese, for example) - so the weighting would skew the data slightly toward more populous countries.

I find the report (pdf file) itself a a bit more interesting in the details. 90% of the Chinese think that China has a positive influence on the world, but only 31% of the Japanese think that Japan has a positive influence. Only 56% of Americans think the US is a positive influence (second lowest to Japan), but 68% of Israelis and 79% of Filipinos think think the US is a positive influence. Our highest rating, though, comes from Kenya (80%) - with Nigeria (66%) and Ghana (65%) being the only other countries that rate us higher than we rate ourselves.

I'm not surprised to find Israel and Iran at the bottom of the barrel, but I'm a little surprised to see China ranking as high as it does. It's a little unsettling seeing Germany and Japan heading the list - who won WWII?

The second possible question - do I agree with the ranking? - is a slightly different story. Overall, though, I'd agree on the general positive and negative ratings. I'd probably rank China, Russia, and the US lower, though, simply because their negative influence is far more wide-ranging than the negative influence of a lot of other countries - though Israel would probably still come at the bottom. But, as it's simply a positive/negative on each country, I would say that only Germany, Japan, the EU, France, and Brazil might get an overall positive from me. The rest are all definitely negs. Except Iran - Iran would probably be a "neither".

Why do you think the US is represented as it is?

I suspect that the occupation of Iraq and the saber-rattling over Iran has a lot to do with our high negatives. The fact that we've improved for the first time in the five years they've been doing the study is probably because, whatever else might be happening, the Bush administration - our long international nightmare - is, at long last, coming to an end. We could probably elect a soiled diaper as the next president and our positives would go up.

Other related thoughts?

To address the point that gave rise to this in the earlier thread, I think there is an extent to which Yanks are treated as sort of second-class global citizens. Living in Europe through the eighties and nineties, this was most evident during the Reagan years, steadily improving through the Bush I and, especially, the Clinton years. I moved back to the US on the eve of the 2000 election, but I can only imagine the attitude toward Americans there now. Sadly, overall attitudes toward Americans are pretty directly related to American foreign policy and not so much to individual Americans: we were way more unpopular in Europe in 1980 than in 1995.

I found that, while traveling on the continent, I was often asked if I was an American (usually after it was determined that my knowledge of any language but English was rudimentary at best). If I admitted that I was, I'd get flat sort of "yeah - thought so" type response. If I said, "I'm from Ireland, actually" (which was technically true), I'd get "oh - cool!" Those thinking I was American would seldom raise political issues - or much else (apart from soliciting opinions on their country, possibly to gauge how arrogant or ignorant I was) - though if I told them I'd been an expatriate for x number of years, things would lighten up considerably. Those thinking I was Irish would talk about anything - usually starting with criticism of current British or American policy (including the British themselves) - and were generally far more sociable.

Now, this may say as much about how the Irish are regarded in Europe as how Americans are perceived, but the difference was consistent and marked. During the Clinton years, though, people were much more receptive to Yanks than during the first decade or so that I spent abroad. The Europeans I encountered loved the Clintons and Americans in general were better perceived as a result. I'm guessing that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will similarly restore a bit of esteem abroad - at least in Europe - after eight years of you know who and five years of you know what.

Do you agree with the above list? Please support your answer.

Well, I can't say that I agree with the entire list because I haven't been to all of those countries; I can only speak from my experience. I don't find it at all surprising that the figure for Canada is 62% negative. I lived there for a few years from mid 2003 - 2005 and I can say the figure seems just about right.

Why do you think the US is represented as it is?

I think the more important question would be why the US represents itself as it does. And, probably more crucially, why is it for the most part unaware of how it represents itself abroad.

I remember staying in Dublin in 2000. I'd been walking about the country for a month. My roommates at the hostel were American and we all went out for drinks. I have never been so embarrassed in my life as I was... watching these guys fulfill the stereotype. It was so bad that when we came out of one club - and the club was packed mind you, we were remembered by a group on the street who said, "Oh, it's the Americans" with such disdain it was painful. And these guys just didn't get it. They laughed and kept it up. I left them to it and went back to the hostel to go to bed.

So, perhaps the answer to your question is that it is represented as it is because, largely, that is how it represents itself.

The headline, "How can 59,017,382 people be so dumb?" was a good indicator of how we are perceived abroad in 2004. Perhaps our ratings abroad improved as Bush's ratings went down... and I agree with Wertz... I think the world sees that chapter ending and may be breathing a global sigh of relief.

Do you agree with the above list? Please support your answer.

More or less


Why do you think the US is represented as it is?

Because the USA is rich, is seen to be utterly indifferent to the consequences of its wealth, and equally indifferent to the opinions of other countries. Plain and simple. The number one word used to describe Americans, in my experience, is arrogant.

Everything else is really just window dressing. America has been very unpopular since the mid 1960's and the so called 'counter culture', which was largely a socialist inspired political movement, disguised as a fashionable, love and peace thing to lure in the gullible.

Global socialism stands for the combat of wealth, specifically the accumulation of wealth in the hands of individuals. Thus a country like America where the accumulation of wealth is encouraged, is regarded as an enemy and treated as such. America is constantly attacked by socialists, all over the planet, and blamed for every thing. Hugo Chavez is the latest best example of what I mean. Something not going right in Venezuela? You can be sure Chavez will attack the USA in his next speech.

Because America is rich, it is used constantly as the excuse as to why all the socialist states, and other repressive/religious/racist regimes can't function properly. Every one jumps on the bandwagon which says "White America is keeping us down" because after fifty years of socialist anti American agitprop it is the perfect excuse that every body believes without question.

...especially since plenty of non white Americans are all too willing to peddle the same line. One of the biggest justifications for hating America is how America treats its black population. Decades of musicians and comedians have painted a picture of life in the USA which is grasped eagerly by the left wingers as validation of their hatred. Seldom do these people ever look to their own countries however, where their own ethnic minorities are treated no better. As always the object lesson is, 'we poor people' are the victims. 'Rich America' is the culprit.

Ironically many of the musicians who once spouted anti capitalist lyrics, are now some of the most greedy capitalists around, yet they seem to like to pretend they're not.

Likewise, the anti American attitude doesn't diminish the more wealthy a country gets. The United Kingdom for example, despite its wealth and international influence is a bastion of left wing hatred for the USA. Its as if the richer the Brits got, the more guilty they've felt and the more they've needed to transfer responsibility for the corruption and devastation they've contributed to, to a convenient scape goat. Rather than put their own house in order, they spend their time whining about America, or how their leaders are 'American lap dogs'.


Other related thoughts?

Ignore such polls. The only verdict that truly matters is your own conscience.

I agree with these three statements. That's all that needs to be said there, I think.

Do you agree with the above list? Please support your answer.

If we are talking about our behaviors outside our borders- I have to say- darn it- no wonder the world sees us as negative- Russia and China have done bad things outside thier borders to other countries- China, obviously, supporting North Korea, oppressing Tibet, even invading Vietnam after we did once. ( but hey, at least they were smart enough to declare victory and go home ) = Russia has Afghanistan, but most of thier aggression comes from Xenophobia and fear of invasion, as a nation or culture- 'cause it has happened a few times in thier past.

But America, outside our borders, with some exception in Africa, has been the worst imperialistic and arrogant country on the planet for at least 30 years, we act like the nieghborhood bully with a gun, immature and really kind of self-destructive about it.

If any of you know what a "borderline personality disorder" looks like- we kind of have that same drama-filled bad behaviors that a borderline personality disorder has- they say they mean well, but they wreck anything and everything they touch eventually.

I do think, domestically, as far our behavior INSIDE our borders, we have it all over a bunch of those countries- having been to some of them, and knowing how hard it is to live and sometimes even survive those countries- with the possible exception of a few places in Europe- I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in those countries- though, Russia is becoming a quite nice place to live in the regions I go to.

I would have to say I saw this negative just as wertz did when I travelled and travel today.

First off, I do feel the same way most Europeans fill about our president "How can 60 million people be so stupid"- you can't explain something like that- however, if you have some political knowledge of other countries- the same can be said for them.

Britain is still reeling from Thatcher, and she destroyed whole industries in her country (coal for instance, making them a WHOLE lot more dependent on foriegn energy source) France has no great lock on bad statesman either- that being said- even thier very, very bad leaders, didn't go around mucking up the whole world.

Let me put it this way- most of the world is right to fear America, because we have the power of global destruction, and elect leaders that use that power badly.

NO matter how bad we say China or Russia or even North Korea is today- those countries aren't behaving as badly outside thier borders as we are today- when we are talking "current events" now- mmkay? We don't need to go over the Prague spring or Tibet- and that may be another reason not to like as well- we rationalize our CURRENT behavior based on other countries PAST behaviors- well, we are not so bad, look at China and Tibet- alright, ya, they are bad, but are they invading the middle east and africa today? How about massive support for terrorism (as in central America) and then claiming others are terrorists?

I did a "backpackers" tour around the world in 1984ish to 1986is- I even IRR for this period of time due to my military obligations, and went National guard when I came back until 1988, so I travelled both as a soldier and as a low-economic-socio status backpacker for most of the 80s, in the 90s, i would work for 2-3 years without vacation, and then take all my leave time over seas, going back to places I wanted to stay at longer. I, like Wertz, noticed about the same trends he mentioned- though, to be honest- I didn't have too many experiances like his- but, as a habit with ALL Alaskans, we tend to mention "Alaska" first when asked "where are you from"- to this day, it seems to make a very, very big difference= don't ask me why.

I have played around with this little phenomenon in my travells- I say " I am American, from Alaska" OR " I am an Alaskan, and we are part of the US, the 49th state"

for some reason, most only hear "Alaska"- and it can be a real ice breaker.

WE become pretty dang popular under Clinton, and had even been asked my opinion if America was entering a new "golden age" and such- something I found very, very amusing, but still was proud of my country.

Now, it can even be dangerous to be American, even in Allied countries. Sometimes, it is safer and easier to claim you are Canadian than American- this really sucks, and makes me very, very angry. I love my country and am generally proud of it- and were I travelling as a single man, I wouldn't give a rat's fanny what others thought of my country- but with woman and children in tow- you HAVE to be very, very aware of your safety, just because you are American.


Why do you think the US is represented as it is?

This question kinda bleeds over from the last one- they are kinda wrapped together. This poll represents how we present our image abroad- has little to do with our own internal divisions and politics- and GW has pretty much killed our rep world wide- we were doing pretty good under Clinton, and, post 9/11, for a while, the whole world was WITH us, heck, I got calls from abroad for weeks after, offering condolences for our "loss" during this time, from friends abroad, whom I still keep contact with.

We had to work pretty darn hard to kill that feeling- but darned if we weren't up to the task as a nation!

Other related thoughts?

I don't agree entirely with Moif- I generally don't accept the blame or responsibility of the actions of my goverment- I am saddened by our actions, made angry at our actions abroad- but I voted against those scumbags, and have never given up trying to get them out of power. Sure, there are 60 million people that were dumb enough to vote for GW twice- but we are a country of 300million, and I don't hold every Russian responsible for Stalin, or every Frenchman responsible for Mitterand, or every Englishman responsible for Thatcher.

But those 60million people that DID vote for GW twice- I am willing to bet money those folks don't leave our borders too much, and have a very, very myopic view of the world.

And you SHOULD care about it- because, it very well could mean our nation's survival at some point- no matter how big and bad you are, when you are a bully, somebody, somewhere, will find a way to take that bully out.

Do you agree with the above list? Please support your answer.

It's a snapshot - the survey itself comments (in the section about China) that the polls were taken just before the current unrest in Tibet - I dare say China's mildly positive ratings would have taken a hit had they done the polling afterwards.

But I think it's a broadly fair snapshot - and I am vaguely (and pleasantly) surprised and the general positivity felt towards the British. Which leads me on to...

Why do you think the US is represented as it is?
Other related thoughts?

America is the imperial power du jour. Of course, it isn't actively "imperial" - there is no Empire and no Emperor (though the fate of every republic in recorded history is ultimately to become one, so you've still got time ). But it is the big beast on the international scene - economically, politically, militarily and culturally, America is the most influential and - most critically - the least open to influence.

I'm guessing that China and Russia get something of a pass, comparatively, because they do not have the same kind of influence. Decisions taken in Moscow of Beijing simply do not affect the daily lives of ordinary people living in Europe or South America or Africa or Asia (or Canada & Mexico) in the same way that decisions taken in Washington do.

And many of the decisions taken in Washington don't chime with the views of many other people. China may have a dreadful human rights record, but they haven't invaded and occupied a sovereign nation since the 1950s (the Tibet coverage at the moment will probably remind people that they do so form time to time, and damage their reputation accordingly). Similarly, Russia does not have a current reputation as a nation that will kill non-citizens at will on a large scale (they clearly don't mind irradiating citizens who live abroad, and Russo-British relations are cooler than they have been in reflection of that).

One other factor that comes into play here - Americans are not international travellers in the same way that most other first world peoples are - even Russians and, to an increasing extent, Chinese - are these days.

Costs and simply geography are a barrier to this, it's true, but America is one of the few remaining countries where "seeing the world" if one did have the time and resources to do so is not a widely-held aspiration.

Those Americans that have travelled or lived abroad for leisure (as opposed to work) - Wertz for example - are seen as atypical (certainly they are in the UK). There may be, and often is, some initial hostility, but when you get to know them you get the distinct impression - especially in the Bush II (and Reagan) years - that they are as much a critic of US policy of the day as the hostile foreigner.

Which leaves "typical Americans" (whatever they might be) both unknown personally to the outside world, and ignorant of it, except for the representations in the media (in all directions).

This feeds into a perception that most Americans, and most American governments, are not only ignorant of the world outside their borders, but not interested in changing that ignorance.

And - rightly or wrongly (at least 50% wrongly, IMO) - the pervasiveness and popularity of American media (mostly in film and TV, but also books) gives non-Americans a perception that they know more about America than America knows about them. This is probably true overall, but I think they probably know America less well than they think they do.

Another perception I detect (which I don't advance as my own view) is that think people see a dissonance between America's rhetoric about it's global image - shiny city on the hill, beacon of freedom, defender of ... and other general claims to be a ideologically driven nation founded on universal principles of right and wrong etc. - and America's actions - loans and/or aid conditional on economic changes that confer advantage on American commerce over local ones, and general realpolitik.

I think the actions themselves are pretty typical - most other countries are out to defend their own interests first and only take morally principled stands on issues that coincide with, or at least do not hinder, those interests.

But, while every nation indulges in some self-inflating rhetoric to justify themselves (that's human nature), few other nations are quite as loud, as forceful or as shiny-eyed evangelist at the "rightness" of what they do.

If America was as concerned for the rights of people as they say they are, the USA would be invading everywhere there is oppression to liberate the oppressed. Of course that isn't practical, or especially desirable, but I think the non-American view would be that this impracticality is a good enough reason to turn down the self-important national back-patting a couple of notches.

As moif has mentioned already, if America has a primary sin in the eyes of the outside world, it is arrogance (hubris, even?) and people are either waiting (or even hoping) for the fall which is bound to follow (a more typical view among those actively hostile to the USA), or rolling their eyes and wishing for a rapid and significant injection of humility (a more widespread view, and one closer to my own opinions sometimes).

But going back to my original point, the world is cool towards America because it feels that America is cool towards them, and because they feel and see that America's opinion of them counts for a lot more real-world application than theirs does of America.

Well lets be clear first. The list shows that Europe and GB are over 50% “positive” with significant “I don’t know” (or I assume don’t care) – and only 18-24% negative. This drops to a low of 18-20% for Pakistan and Iran. And Gee Noth Korea is negative – Wow I am all upset.

The one that shocks me is Israel with 19% approval and 54% negative – So tell me again why we give this country 7-10 billion a year??? We should re think that one.

We will never be universally loved but certainly no one can point to a country that has done, and is doing, more good in the world than the US.

Well, I've thought about saying many things on this thread, but there's so much to say, I don't know how much time to spend on this or what would be the point really. I am most interested in hearing what others think here (thanks, everyone who has contributed so far ). I'll just touch on a few things.



Are there honestly more Chinese tourists in England than American tourists? Aren't the eastern Europeans and Russians generally immigrating (rather than 'visiting')? Italy was filled with eastern European immigrants much like the population of Mexicans here. They were treated horribly there. Whenever this topic comes up, I generally get a damned if we do and if we don't impression (I guess par for the course in the position we're in). At one end, Americans don't travel enough so we're ignorant of the world, but (as others have alluded above) when we do travel we're hillbillies at a fashion show. If we don't travel we're ignorant, if we do travel, we're ignorant.

For my own part, I'll admit I've cringed when seeing Americans at the airport in Venice. I don't usually have to see a person open their mouth or speak to tell where they are from by the way they carry themselves. But I have spotted lots of other nationalities making idiots out of themselves. Korean families squatting in the middle of airport and no one mutters, "look at those ugly Koreans!" That would be xenophobic. Unusual behaviors from anyone other than Americans is likely to be viewed as exotic or quaint. In reality, their actions might be just as backward and idiotic in their own countries as the ones they are visiting because about 24 percent of the world population is retarded. This inclination is not exclusive to the United States. A person visiting America from the UK is excused of almost any and every possible stupidity because their voices sound nice. "Clever inebriated fellow belting out a tune about 'Fanny Miller the queen of all the acrobats!' I only wish our country held such musical genius!" (And I'm as guilty of this as anyone, I think it must be in the water)

There’s some irony in that list. The Germany and Japan of today are the direct result of US influence. Furthermore, during the cold war, we spent an average of 6.7 percent of our GDP on NATO expenses to keep the Soviets out of Europe while the Europeans themselves spent an average of 3.5 percent of their own GDP for their own defense. We spent more on Europe’s defense than Europe did, for decades. And now the country that built a huge wall dividing Berlin, exported misery by force and tried to starve the population (ameliorated by our Berlin air-drop) comes out as the more ‘positive’ influence. I would expect with our contribution, not to be loved, but perhaps judged a bit ahead when we're competing, not with a Platonian ideal society, but China for criminy's sake.

And I think we generally play well with others, for all of our flaws. On issues of sovereignty, we guard that jealously, but we aren't much different from other nations in that respect. We don't tend to abandon allies arbitrarily, for political expediency. Not like others that fair far better in world opinion. The Germans stationed in Afghanistan have actually had to ignore distress calls from allies because their government placed severe operational restrictions on its ground troops. Recently, 180 Canadians were under attack, called for help, the Germans refused and some Canadian soldiers died. I do not believe that we would do the same. But then the German's own population is so anti-its-own-military that they have to have their Top Gun pilot training here in the US, at Holloman AFB in New Mexico (I guess the preferred China wasn't offering?). Their own government won't give them the airspace they need for training exercises. Talk about screwy. Ah, well...

I won't openly dispute Julian's claim since I dont live in the UK any more, but my experience with Chinese tourists, there or here has been, to date, zero.

I have however met plenty of American tourists, the majority of whom were no different from tourists from any where else. I might also add that Brits themselves have a fairly appalling reputation in the European mainland as being loud, obnoxious boors who congregate in drunken herds and who can actually be dangerous under certain conditions. Not least if a football match involving England has taken place within a few days... Say what you will about American tourists, but I have yet to see them rioting in a European city because America lost a sporting event.


I think its only fair to point out that you were also spending said money on defending yourselves against Soviet attack. Lets not pretend that the USA only paid these trillions to defend Europe alone.


The problem you face here is negative advertising. Most of the rest of the planet is rife with unscrupulous socialists who eagerly (ab)use the United States to promote their own pie-in-the-sky utopian world vision. Even as I write this, Denmarks state TV channel is showing a programme about an American ex-prisoner who was convicted though innocent and who served 24 years until he was released. Such TV stories regarding American problems are common in our media as much of our television is bought cheap from the USA and these contribute to the general socialist opinion that there is something essentially evil about the USA.


Central European air space is very crowded. I wouldn't be surprised if they simply couldn't afford to spare the air space.

And Germany has pretty valid reasons for not allowing its troops into battle, reasons which were hammered into place with help from your own country. I don't think its fair to suddenly blame the Germans for doing as they have been ordered to do for the last 60 years.

True, and fair enough, but I didn't say we did it all for altruistic reasons. In defending Europe, we were defending our own interests as well. So? The facts remain. And the above isn't the entirety of our defense expenditures throughout the cold war. The Marshall plan too, wasn't altruistic but Europe benefitted greatly. We currently fund 27 percent of UN peacekeeping activities as well (Iraq and Afghanistan not included). Up until recently, we took about a third of the burden-sharing for UN fees, though it's now down to 22 percent. We've spent a lot of money in aid helping Eastern Europe clean up after the Soviet fall. When there is a crisis, like the Tsunami in the Pacific, the world needs US airlift support for humanitarian efforts. I agree we don't do much if anything for altruistic reasons. Nations usually don't, but we do contribute quite a lot I think. I don't expect a high-five, just a 'May we use your airlift'? The vibe I'm getting is rather, "Give us your airlift bastards! And we still hate you!!!" The vibe must be correct when I look at a list like this.



Well, if they don't want their troops in battle they shouldn't send them to a warzone. Either help, or don't, but don't pretend to be helping and abandon your allies when needed. The South Koreans did a similar thing in Kurdistan. This sort of thing isn't exclusive to Germany.

Thought I'd add: I came by the above information from a German pilot. His brother is serving in Afghanistan now, and he was pretty heated about it. The side at fault isn't the German military, it is internal politics. Germany has very capable forces. And for all my blustering above, I really like it that we have some of the best pilots in Germany training here. It's an honor for us, and pretty cool, actually.

1) I don't see how I can disagree with the above list. It is a poll based upon surveys of people in various countries. How can I dispute it? A better question is why, as an American, should I care.

2) Though we are slipping, we are still the big dog and as such, will be hated. Of course, as Com China makes us look like we play patty-cake, any poll in which we are behind them shows a complete lack of understanding. We may have borderline totured some terror suspects; Com China has killed over 100 million of their own citizens since Mao began the comm. govt after WWII.

3) All we need to do is be true to ourselves. I don't lie awake at night worrying about how the Germans, for example, view us.

Do you agree with the above list?

How did N. Korea even get on the list? Seriously. You can think what you want about our policy towards them...but what has N. Korea done itself to engender any positive effect anywhere? Did they survey 37,000 terrorists, or what?

Why do you think the US is represented as it is?

Because of the emphasis on recent events (opinion always reflects recent events far more heavily), and world opinion on the situation in Iraq.

Other related thoughts?

The U.S. suffers from excessively lofty world expectations (hey...maybe that's not true anymore! problem solved! ) . Whenever a crisis breaks out, we're looked to to resolve it. Given that every crisis has people on both sides, no matter what we do we're criticized by one group or the other...or both if we don't show sufficient bias to either. Further, we're expected to be far more altruistic than every other country on earth (and still accused of meddling where we're not needed even when those are our motives). News flash...the goal of every country's foreign policy is to promote the interests of that country. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply naive. The interesting thing is that most of these people expect every OTHER country to behave selfishly...just not the U.S. Why woulld/should the U.S. actively work against its own interests? I have no idea.... (does that make me a selfish American?) This said, I think it is U.S. policy to promote freedom and economic growth throughout the world, which benefits other countries as much or more than it benefits us.

Finally, I've never really understood why so many use world opinion as a measure of foreign policy success. Doing what's right and doing what's popular are not always the same thing...therefore world opinion is not an effective measure of much. Maybe not the best analogy (but perhaps fitting given the world's propensity to view us as their caretakers/problem solvers)... should parents be judged (or even that concerned) by their children's opinion of them at any given time? Is that opinion not likely to dip precisely when parents are doing exactly the right thing?

And I am afraid I must concur. The glaring ingratitude is cast in sharp contrast when one considers the antics of the remaining nations on Earth. Few nations do as much to help as the USA, and those who do more, only do so in proportion to their populations. My own nation is one such, but our diminuative size means we are forever punching above our weight.

I can only say that as 'anti-American' as I may sometimes seem on I am, despite decades of socialist anti American agitprop, proud my own nation is still a staunch ally of the United States. I wish we could do more.


Ah, but you see, a lot of Germans do want their troops to make a difference, but they have to tread softly. Dead German soldiers would upset that aspiration. Dead Afghan civilians at the hands of German troops would be even worse.

The tolerance for collateral damage in post imperial Europe is far less than in the USA. Last year when Afghan civilians were seen to be pushed around by Danish troops, the political opposition almost succeeded in pulling Danish troops out of Afghanistan.

Questions to be debated:
Do you agree with the above list? Please support your answer.
Why do you think the US is represented as it is?
Other related thoughts?

Do you agree with the above list? Please support your answer.

Yes. My support for that answer is the list itself?

Why do you think the US is represented as it is?

The main reason is because for over 100 years the US has enacted an imperial foreign policy. We have consistently aided and supported right-wing dictators. We have committed our troops to battle more often than anyone else. We have toppled democratic governments and sold arms to those whose intentions were murderous. It could be said, I suppose, that somewhere along the way we shifted from the promotion of real democracy and liberty... but that would be a lie too. Within our own nation working people since before the dawn of the Industrial Revolution have had to fight tooth and nail for civil rights and protections.

We tend to be mostly oblivious to this, having been raised and sold on the notion that whatever the Dear Leaders told us we were fighting about was the actual, real reason we were fighting. We were "making the world safe for democracy," while it wasn't safe here at home. We were fighting an empty 'cold' war against the godless communists of the USSR, we were fighting a 'war on terror' that was fiction from the start. But people around the world haven't forgotten these things. They remember.

And we all know the price of Empire. Just about the only thing not written yet is who will be playing the Huns this time around.

I wouldn't say there were more Chinese tourists than there are Americans, no, but they are certainly a very fast-growing segment of inbound tourism here. I was more thinking about other former communist countries, and yes, it's true, that means lots of Eastern Europeans coming here to work as much as to see Big Ben and Stonehenge. Don't know about you, but I'd say living and working somewhere gives you a much better handle on what a country and its people are really like than a whistle stop tour, which in turn is better than never visiting at all.



*ahem* Guilty as charged. Just wait until you hear the one about the girl from the Rhondda.



Here I can't speak for continental Europe. America GAVE Marshall plan aid to Europe after WW2 and charged interest on the LOANS extended to the UK (an ally, as opposed to, say, a defeated enemy). Loans which were only conditional on the removal of tariffs and exchange controls on American trade with the entire British Empire, ensuring that, even if it ever did manage to rebuild itself into a leading technological economy, Britain would never again challenge the USA as an economic superpower. As a reader of Sun Tsu and Machiavelli, I take my hat off to the post war USA - permanent removal of any possible future threat.



Fair comment. And - Grenada aside - I'm pretty happy to belong to the nation that the USA takes into every major military engagement that it ever succeeds in (occasionally as little more than a kind of lucky mascot, but there you go). We stayed out of Vietnam, but with hindsight I dare say that most Americans might wonder if that was such a great idea in the first place anyway.



I can't find any figures - I can only offer anecdote. The last time I was in London for leisure there were more Chinese tourists than I expected (on organised coach tours like the Japanese used to be famous for - all clicking cameras). In one day I saw three coachloads, all with tour guides waving the Chinese flag (which is how I knew where they were from China and were not Chinese Malays or some other ethnic minority Chinese from - say - San Fransisco). Then when I was last in Oxford, last autumn, I saw another similar busload, which I assumed to be organised by the same tour operator (they used the same bus company). They might have been one-offs; I'm not in London or Oxford that much these days, so I don't know. But they were the first sign of organised Chinese tourism I've ever seen, and there were more Chinese in one place than I've EVER seen of Americans in one place - though again that's probably not so peculiar.



True, though there are a few things to say about this that mean it might not be evidence of any particular venality among the British.
1. There are very few sports attracting large, tribally loyal (i.e. club-based, so I'm excluding things like golf or boxing), working class American followings that ever get played in Europe. There's hardly any baseball, basketball or gridiron football played in Europe, let alone to a level where the big US clubs would be interested in playing. The same goes for soccer in the USA (and we are pretty exclusively talking about soccer here for sports where folllowing fans cause large-scale trouble).
2. "Working class" is relevant, because even if teams did play one another in transatlantic matches regularly, proportionately few fans would be able to afford to follow them. And because of unfavourable exchange rates and generally higher travelling costs, fewer Americans would ocme to Europe than would apply in the reverse direction.
3. Soccer hooliganism has been clamped down more effectively in the UK than anywhere else. Last I read on the subject, Italian fans were more likely to cause trouble than British ones, especially at club level.

That's not to say that Brits abroad are not generally quite venal drunkards prone to vile behaviour - we are. I've mostly visited Francophone countries so far in Europe and speak good enough French that they think I can't possibly be British. They usually think I'm Dutch (maybe I have an Dutch accent without knowing it. ) I take any great pains to disabuse them of the notion though, unlike Americans pretending to be Canadian for fear of being spat at, beaten up or shouted at, it's because I really am ashamed of the way some of my countrymen behave.

Usually I just say je suis Gallois or soy Gales and it's all sweetness and light - few Europeans have any reason not to like the Welsh. We're not quite as well liked as the Irish, but that's probably got as much to do with the marketing efforts of the Guinness brewery as any inherent Irish wonderfulness. (Here I'm praising the Guinness marketers more than grumbling about the Irish.)



MrsP reply is fair, but I think underestimates the strength of domestic German (and, for that matter, Japanese) feeling against their troops engaging actively in battle. I mostly agree with the sentiments of Mrs P myself; while I can understand why German is afraid of aggression these days, I just wish they'd get over it and muck in.



You're definitely on to something with that point. As far as I recall, even GWBush, while he wasn't popular in Europe prior to 9-11, was regarded as more of a harmless joke than anything else. Let's not forget that in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, America was the subject of an enormous upswelling of sympathy and goodwill, at least in Europe. It was only the buildup and execution of the Iraq invasion that turned that to dust, and that was a deliberate policy decision (and not just of the US government - as I said before I'm vaguely surprised that the UK is regarded as positively as it is.)



All very true, but I go back to my earlier point that much of the national self image and rhetoric that America projects is that the shinind centrality of America is it's foundation on high and universal moral principles. Maybe the rest of the world is just being a bit too literal and taking you at your word, so it's no wonder they get disappointed when you just turn out to be pragmatists?



Again, much of the national rhetoric the USA projects is centred on doing what's right at the expense of doing what's popular. Which - together with differing perceptions around the world on what is right - is maybe why people get disappointed when America does things they think is wrong for no more (immediately apparent) reason than for domestic popularity back in Main Street USA (or, more often these days, Wall Street NYC).

Also, America claims a leadership role in many areas of policy, so it's only natural to then expect America to do more to justify that leadership. (Or maybe just shut up about it.)



Seconded, in spite of anything else I've said on this thread or anywhere else. I think the USA generally is a force for good in the world. For the record, I don't think there's many places that do more; though on a per capita basis, Scandinavia - Denmark included - are still ahead, there are many fewer capitae to count. Britain is up there too, in most aspects. I just get frustrated



For historical context, this is obviously because Europe (the continent as a whole) bore the brunt of collateral damage in the two major conflicts of the 20th century. America hasn't faced domestic carnage on an similar scale since the Civil War (9-11, while terrible, wasn't on a scale comparable to European civilian casualties, particularly in WW2), probably not even then.

I believe you hit the nail on the head here. World Socialism and leftist governments everywhere love to downplay a successful free US and show all of out problems and blemishes distorted a=out of proportion in the hope of making their “systems” look better.

I think our “image” will improve in countries that see the far left for what they are and head (politically) in our direction – as France is doing.

I still am puzzled by Israel. Any ideas?

I'm curious Ted, is there any social or political conflict which cannot be blamed exclusively on socialists and left-wing politics? I only ask because that is your standard stock-in-trade, and I'd like to know what other curios you have in the bazaar.



Canada is probably closer politically to the United States than any other country on the planet (absolute failure of a health-care system notwithstanding of course)... and we've been moving pretty steadily to the right for the last thirty years. Oddly enough, in recent years (when the push to the right has accelerated), our estimation of America has declined.

Kind of disproves your argument.

Now I'm not going to play the "America deserves it card." I didn't like Jason Green back in grade school because he had the biggest toys... I also didn't like him because he was a jerk who made a point of showing them off as well.

The United States has achieved a level of wealth and prosperity (for most) which is unrivaled, and that is bound to anger some people. But the fact is that, in addition to being highly visible, America has a profound ability to impact the lives of citizens in other countries, and not always in positive ways. That's going to generate some resentment. Humility is something that is learned in the schoolyard; and America has yet to grasp the concept. The fact is that when a country proclaims its greatness, it is de facto stating that other countries (like my own) aren't so great... and that rankles.

And this means what? Is there any social data that is not the fault of conservatives Joe?

I tend to agree. The enormous good we do is often overshadowed by the perception we are just too aggressive. Now some of this is from the far left because they need more latitude to push their agenda but certainly not all. I think we should pull back from all but our vital interests and let the UN and the rest of the world deal with their issues for a couple of decades. We should give the world “cop” job to whoever wants it. Then as Russia becomes more aggressive lets see who gets the call to “keep them in check”.

IMO NATO is a failure – despite the significant gains Bush made last week. We get crappy support in Afghanistan – and its not like we ever asked the NATO alliance for anything significant since we gave em 400,000 American lives in WWII – to which we could add WWI. Canada is imo a better ally than all of Europe with the exception of UK.


And this is from the left in Canada. As we hear from the left wing of the Dem party here. They would love to emulate the failure here in the US.

Can conservatives in Canada scrap it? Or is it too late?

Yes, our marketing department needs to be fired. Wait...we don't even have a marketing department--there's the problem! Or worse, maybe GWB IS our marketing department, and that's just ... wrong.



First, refer to above on crappy marketing. Do we really project national rhetoric? I think where many foreigners get...confused... is that they get to see our domestic policy discussions, and then they make international inferences from them. I suspect if domestic policy discussions in other countries received as much publicity worldwide as ours do, then the perception of most countries would go down. You still think N. Korea would be ranked as high as they are? HA! Unlikely! What about China? Any country in the middle east, with the possible exception of Jordan? Best advice I can offer: Internal American political statements are just that, internal. Ignore them, they mean nothing. Politicians say whatever they think will get them elected...these statements are not a reflection of what will actually be done at all, and certainly not a reflection of what will be done internationally. Iraq might be a good example of this. For all the political talk of immediate pull-outs, that just won't happen (and in fact has already been back tracked from). It's just said to illicit a certain *domestic* political response. Foreigners should simply ignore this blather (as should most of us Americans, too), as it pretty much means nothing. The list of broken campaign promises (much less random statements) is long and glorious and could fill volumes, whereas the list of kept campaign statements is right here on this blank little sticky pad in front of me. So, why pay attention to it, especially if it's not even directed at you?

As to the leadership role, do we claim it, or is it thrust upon us? Some of both, I think, but the latter is usually discounted. The Bosnia conflict is a good example of this. We didn't really want anything to do with, but the leadership role was foisted upon us. This happens more often than most people think. Somalia would be another example, I think (anyone more familiar with the policy intracies disagree?). So, again, we're back to people expecting more from America than they really should, I think.

(I do tend to agree somewhat with shutting up about it, though, but, hey, *they* don't ask me for my opinion).

Quarkhead, I will be happy to chip in some money to assist you in moving you citizenship out of the USA and into a nation with whom you will have more harmony and about which you will feel better. Please feel free to contact me when you've made your decision....

And thus we come to this topic's relevance to the thread it spun out of, A View of Patriotism. Any citizen who harshly criticizes US policy must not love their country and should leave.

Thanks for the non-response. I live in the US because this is where I live. There's things I like about it, and things I don't. Our government has pursued an imperialistic policy - often at the expense of liberty - for an awfully long time, and I don't like that. The domestic policies of this country and its foreign policy are very different beasts, in a way. We are fortunate that we have a system in which, even though it is difficult, and has to be fought for tooth and nail, civil progress can be made. But we shouldn't forget the intense struggle it took the "common" people of this nation to achieve those aims. The protections which today prevent child labor, slavery, indentured servitude, which protect the suffrage of women and minorities, these were never granted through some boon - they were fought for very very hard.

On the foreign front, if you look at history - really look at it - the imperial actions of the United States are not really debatable. We have killed millions and subjugated millions more in our quests for land, resources, power, and trade opportunities. Our intentions have been only rarely "good" in an idealistic sense regarding liberty and justice. Do me a favor if you don't believe me: go back to say 1850 and start looking at our foreign adventures. Make a list of the places troops have been committed by the US. I'll help you out a bit. From 1798 to 1993 US troops were sent overseas 234 times. Ellen Collier, in her paper for the Naval historical center, listed most of these as "protecting American interests." (source) Now, if you research each of those further, you will see that for a strong majority of those engagements, the American "interests" being protected were not our "interest" in democracy or civil liberties, they were the private interests of US corporations. Major General Smedley Butler of the Marines (one of only 19 people to have been awarded the Medal of Honor twice) wrote, after over 30 years of service in the Marines (this is from 1933):

MILLIONS? Want to define that sir. I know we ended a war last century that killed over 70 million people. We are certainly not perfect but in the world where real imperialism has reigned free for hundreds of years we are Lilly white.
And who have we “subjugated”? Do you mean the millions we have give jobs to and hundreds of billions in income. Or the millions we save fron disease with vaccines and foreign aid?

It isn't (just) the domestic political discussions. The entertainment industry (which is one of the most popular exports from America - no arguments that we don't have to watch it; most of us just plain want to, but we don't get to pick and choose the messages we get) often reflects the domestic American rhetoric only without the political context.
Examples:

• America as "the shining city on the hill".
• The American Constitution/Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights (or whichever document is under discussion) as the finest political document ever written (whether it is or not is immaterial, my point is that in telling yourselves that it is, you're also telling everyone else).
• Any descriptions of the PotUS as "the Leader of the Free World"

It doesn't much matter that non-Americans may have coined these phrases (though as far as I know they didn't) - they have been adopted wholesale by the whole of American culture - political, social, etc.

Then there are the big movie set-piece speeches (often with dramatic music, be they movie speeches or real political ones) where people talk about the principles underlying the experiment that is the Republic of the United States of America in terms that anyone non-American could be forgiven for thinking are absolutely universal and should be applied to everybody everywhere.

They are, and are designed to be, very stirring and uplifting, and more than anything else they are designed to be convincing. They convince millions of Americans; is it so hard to believe that they also convince non-Americans? And does it then become hard to understand any disillusionment that might set in if they then see America behaving in ways that don't fit they high standards that it lays claim to upholding?

That's not the case for everyone - some people just genuinely hate the USA and it wouldn't matter WHAT you said or did, they'd still feel the same way. But I can't help but think that the thrust of this survey is that Americans are taken aback by the ubiquity and the depth of their unpopularity, and the debate questions ask why this might be. I'm just trying to advance some ideas to help answer them.





Well, that may be true, but it isn't a role that America has rejected - more like embraced. I go back to my "Leader of the Free World" comment above - that isn't an epithet that is usually applied by anyone outside America when talking about any US President (regardless of who it happens to be at the time, though the current incumbent is looked on less fondly than... well, any I've ever even heard of).


Fair enough.

Quarkster, none of what you have said changes anything: You clearly need to move, and I am willing to help out with a small cash donation.

What idealists like you fail to understand is this: I do not expect my nation to be selflessly perfect, even though this nation has done more good than any other major power I can think of (you can do good and still stomp on the occasional banana republic; life is complex, you know). I expect, indeed DEMAND, that it act in the self interest of its citizens.

In fact, I think it absolutely immoral for a nation to commit the blood of its sons to anything that is not in the nation's self-interest. If these same sons choose willingly to fight for some cause not in their own self-interest, like fighting in the Spanish Civil War for the loyalists, well, that is their business, but the govt should never do so unless it benefits the nation.

Now, if the govt acts in a way that benefits a few of its citizens but has little or no benefit for the balance of our citizens, then I have some issues. This indeed has happened. But, when Jefferson throttled the Barbary Pirates, for example, you could argue this benefited only the shipping interests, but the freer trade this promoted benefited all Americans. And, when we manhandled a number of hopelessly corrupt nations lead by tin pot dictators or emperors in Central and South America, all of which benefited big business but also provided jobs both here and there, and promoted general economic growth, I can live with that.

How far should this nation go in this regard? Well, that is a tough decision, and there are indeed some limits, but I certainly have no trouble with the US acting in its own self interest. Of course, now we are into another thread.

You have only yourselves to blame for this. Its the natural consequence of America's twentieth century policies. America built the modern world as surely as if it had planned it. Look at Quarkhead's Smedley Butler quote and explain to me how, after a hundred years of expanding American military and political domination, the world could be any other way.

~~~~

Quarkhead

The trouble with quoting Smedley Butler is your making an assumption that an American soldier in 1933 is still relevent in 2008. Yes, what the man wrote was, and is largely true, but have you really considered what he was saying, and more importantly, what the implications of what he was saying are for us today?

I ask, because a lot of left leaning people on the internet seem to like quoting Smedley Butler without ever stopping to consider the political alternatives which were on offer in 1933, or the fact that the capitalist exploitation Smedley Butler was lamenting, was directly responsible for the affluence of the United States today.

In order words, there is no credible alternative method of building affluent, democratic nations. Military force has always been used to protect mercantile interests and there has never been a successful state which did not have a protective military to ensure its survival. Smedley Butler's jaded understanding of his life's work seems to me, to be more the product of lost innocence than an astute political mind.

I think the majority of right minded people understood that for all its many flaws, America's aggressive 'capitalist imperialism' was the best option this planet had during the twentieth century, as Churchill said about democracy, its not perfect but its certainly better than all the alternatives. So it was with America.

The question today is, is America still the best option or not? A lot of people in Europe like to think Europe's social democracy's are a better social model, that the EU is the way forwards. Maybe they are, I doubt it, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

One thing is for certain though. Europe has only blossomed in these last sixty years because it had the protection of men like Smedley Bulter willing to go out into the world and kill those who threatened our mercantile interests.

Everytime I hear the "you need to move" - I can't help but realize how many neo-nazi-fascists we have in this country. This is the same area that those kind of people pop up from- the "our way or the hiway" type thing- what would be REALLY good for this country, if we could bag and tag every neo-con chest thumping "were number one" so called patriot in this country and export them back in time to Fascist spain- the perfect place for them- official religion, patriotism as a law, kill all those that disagree with the goverment.

Those kinds of statements by Ted and Quick show how profoundly they really do hate freedom and the US. They love THIER vision of the US- but it aint' free.

And the very reason that the rest of the world has such a low opinion of us- we, as a nation, hate freedom, aboslutely DESPISE it in other countries- that is why we overthrow freely elected and popular goverments in order to install evil monster dictators.

Our foriegn policies have been on the level and scope of hitler and stalin in some countries- one notable exception would be Grenada-

but in Nicaragua, Guatamala, Honduras, Chile- we have been the very epitome of evil, and responsible for MILLIONS of dead- yep, add it up- we may not have marched them personally to death camps-instead, we installed dictators that did it for us-

and, when the choice is between allowing a counttry to pick thier own leaders, or the US to install a dictator- almost every time- we pick the dicatator.

I would like to see a rebuttal to this based on facts- because there ain't any folks. We back the bad guys, and enable the bad guys, 90% of the time, probably closer to 99% of the time.

Though Mrs P- only one point of contention in your views on travelers and the "ugly American"-

Germans, outside of Europe- seem to be one of the most disliked, even more than Americans, as the "ugly german"- kinda have to be there to notice it.

But it is more noticable outside of Europe.

I first saw it in the Fiji's and noticed it in the south pacific alot.

The worst was the last time I was in Thailand- the nasty german pedophile was a very sick joke at the time- though, I understand, they have really, really cracked down on that- and arrest them when they get home OR they are in Thailand, same with the English.

I do think the Americans were quicker on the uptake for busting international pedophiles that were US citizens than the Euros.

It has gotten to be so sick in Thailand with sex tourism in general, that you can't mention you are going to track days in Patawa now without someone saying "gonna get a club girl" while you are there.

I don't even want to tell them I am bringing my wife and kids along

Central America gave us some of our highest marks in the list of countries polled (especially by comparison to Europe and Canada). They gave us fewer 'negatives' than we gave ourselves. Ironically, the Philippines gave us the highest marks of anyone.

Could you provide me with examples of which evil monster dictators replaced freely elected Danish governments...?

It would be useful to know.



Its that simple for you eh?

You truly believe the USA employed 'evil monster dictators' in order to murder millions of innocent people for no apparent reason?

I have a small thought I'd like to propose for your momentary consideration.

Could it just be, these evil monster dictators were in fact the only credible opposition to a rampant socialist threat that would (and frequently has) put many times more people into early graves? That the alternative to supporting men like Pinochet, was to allow Soviet backed socialist states to flourish in South America leading to an eventual conflict which more than likely would have seen the USA out flanked?

Could it be that men like Castro, Guvarra and Alliende represented something even worse than CIA backed dictators? or does such a thing as context mean nothing at all?

Thanks