World Opinion of Bush

[Skogs]

How is it that a president can be so unpopular in the World, and yet still enjoy a significant percentage of the support in his country? Do Americans not care how Bush is slowly turning the world against the US/ For now, the animosity is dicrected directed solely at Bush (for the most part), but were he to remain in power, it would surely reflect on the American people - at least in the eyes of the world.

I'm actually more interested in hearing from Americans about this issue. How important is the image that your leader gives your country in the international community when it comes to deciding how you vote? For me it's very important - Howard is a little weasel and everyone in the world knows it. It's just that Australians are too spineless to dump the incumbents unless things are going properly pear-shaped, and I find that highly frustrating.

So... discuss.

Kerry would win by a landslide if the world voted
By Michael Gordon National Editor
October 15, 2004
www.theage.com.au

Most Australians do not like George Bush and want John Kerry to win next month's presidential election - and they are not alone.

A co-ordinated survey of attitudes by leading newspapers in 10 nations has revealed a sharp souring of attitudes towards the United States that can be traced to one man: Mr Bush.

Remarkably, the view of Australian voters on the key questions is almost perfectly in sync with the average recorded across the other nine nations: Canada, Britain, France, Spain, South Korea, Japan, Israel, Russia and Mexico.

Fifty-four per cent of Australian voters would prefer to see John Kerry in the White House - a figure that exactly matches the average of the 10 surveys.

Sixty-five per cent of Australians have an unfavourable view of Mr Bush. Just 28 per cent would prefer him to win on November 2. The averages across the 10 nations were 63 per cent and 27 per cent respectively.

And 54 per cent of Australians say their opinion of the US has declined in the past two or three years - again, exactly reflecting the average across the 10 nations.
Advertisement Advertisement

But most people surveyed have a favourable view of American people. None have a more positive attitude than the citizens of America's Cold War rival, Russia.

Nearly 90 per cent of Russians have a favourable view of Americans, compared with 72 per cent of Australians and 62 per cent of Britons. Only the Spanish (47 per cent) do not like Americans.

In just two of the 10 countries do more voters want Mr Bush to win next month than Senator Kerry. In Israel, support for Mr Bush is at 50 per cent to Senator Kerry's 24 per cent. In Russia, the contest is closer, with 52 preferring Mr Bush returned and 48 wanting to see Senator Kerry elected.

Alejandro Moreno, a commentator for Mexico's Reforma, reconciled the positive views towards Americans with the worsening view of America in one adapted phrase: "It's Bush, stupid!"

The simultaneous surveys were the idea of La Presse in Canada. The project involved several of the world's leading newspapers, including France's Le Monde, Britain's The Guardian, Spain's El Pais and Israel's Haaretz.

Most of those surveyed believe it is important that the US play a world leadership role, an area where Australian opinion is stronger than the average.

Seventy-three per cent of Australians take this view, but less than 50 per cent agree in France, Spain and Russia.

Australians also have a more positive view of the Iraq war than voters in most of the other countries, even though most Australians do not believe the war was justified.

While an average of 55 per cent of Australian voters have opposed the war in AgePoll surveys by ACNielsen over the past 14 months, opposition is much higher in Canada (67 per cent), France (77), Spain (80), Japan (71), Mexico (83) and South Korea (85).

The strongest supporter of President Bush and the war in Iraq is Israel, where 70 per cent of voters support the President and 68 per cent say the US was right to invade Iraq.

As Shmuel Rosner of Haaretz puts it: "Israel loves America, and it loves the American President." He notes that Israel is a country very much focused on itself. "All they want to know is that the Americans are on their side in the important and difficult struggles they have to endure."

Perhaps most surprising is the anti-American sentiment in South Korea, a nation that owes its security and economic strength to the US.

Young Hie Kim, of JoongAng Ilbo, writes that in recent years, the perception of the US among many Koreans has changed drastically, especially among the young.

"Now, many see the US as having moved from a benefactor to an impediment to inter-Korean reconciliation; from a protector to a country that could shatter peace on the Korean Peninsula with hard-line policies towards North Korea."

In Canada, where ice hockey fans in Montreal boo the US national anthem before teams take to the ice, 64 per cent of voters have an unfavourable opinion of Mr Bush and say their opinion of the US has lowered in the past two or three years.

While hostility to Mr Bush is generally concentrated among younger voters, it extends to all categories of the population in France with the exception of those who support Jean-Marie Le Pen's extreme right National Front party.

EDIT:// fixed punctuation

[fire_of_avalon]

I for one believe the image cast upon the US by our leaders world wide is very important, which is one of the many reasons I'm voting Kerry. Honestly, I feel that many Americans simply still feel threatened concerning the events of 9/11, not so much that the events happened but more along the lines of the idea that we aren't nearly as secure as we once thought. I think many of us took for granted the protection we had, and when that belief was taken away from the US many people decided the best course of action was to hide behind a "strong" leader. I think too many Americans have their views of the outside world skewed, and as a result their definition of strength fits Bush perfectly.

In another time and place, when America was very young and vulnerable to many other nations in the world, Bush would have made an excellent leader. With the power America has now, we need a more thoughtful leader willing to seek compromise with both allies and alleged enemies before he starts warring with people. Though I realize in some extreme cases, initial force is really the only option we're given, I believe it should be a last ditch effort, not the preferred course of action. I guess in short, you could say the world's feelings towards this country is important to me, because nationailty is secondary to humanity.

[Endless]

Let's put it this way though (and that's more general than just the USA here): what do people from the other countries (and following the same line, their leaders) do for your country? Do they pay taxes? Are they part of your government? Obviously no, so what they think about your president/candidates is nothing more than that, an opinion.

Let's take a few examples, that I know of, namely France and the USA. Do you really think the French will even stop to think "do I care what the Americans think of my country"? If you think so, you are either a fool, or working in the tourism industry. But on the other hand, everyone expects the USA to care about what France thinks about it. Do you see the asymetry?

It's pretty general in fact, a lot of people in the world expect the USA to care about what France thinks, but no one complains that France (and its president leading the movement) gives that much poopoo (blame the forum's word censor for that silly word) to the USA. Everyone wants the USA to acknowledge them and respect them, but 95% of these also won't ever respect the USA, much less like them.

Bottom line is: why would the Americans care about what the rest of the world thinks about them?

[Skogs]

Given that the United States' influence extends well beyond its borders, shouldn't those who are influenced by its actions have some representation in the way US policy is directed? For a start, by the USA respecting UN resolutions. Is it not hypocritical for the US to support democracy within, but not among countries?

[LH]

[q=Skogs]How is it that a president can be so unpopular in the World, and yet still enjoy a significant percentage of the support in his country?[/q]

From my experience, Bush supporters fall into four categories: greedy rich people who benefit from Bush's rich-loving policies (vocal minority), people who support Bush at this moment simply because he is America's leader (generalization: they tend to see verbal attacks against Bush as being no different than verbal attacks against America, Americans, and American troops.) but are not necessarily Republican supporters, people who are just too stupid to know any better (yee-haw, let's go kill some Ay-rabs!), and people who honestly agree with Bush's policies after thinking about it. That last type is rare. I think the second group accounts for a lot of Bush's popularity. It just seems that a lot of Americans unconditionally support George Bush just because he is the President of the United States of America. I think they see dissent as un-patriotic.


[q=Skogs]I'm actually more interested in hearing from Americans about this issue. How important is the image that your leader gives your country in the international community when it comes to deciding how you vote?[/q]

I don't really care much about what civilized nations think of my President because they're not likely to go around dropping bombs in my country because of who he is... unless of course he does it to them first. Terrorists, however, do that type of thing, so hopefully a new face in the White House could ease up the anti-American sentiments in some regions of the world where it's running out of control to the point of terrorism. I say hopefully because Kerry would have to juggle easing tensions along with spouting off "kill Ay-rab" rhetoric on TV to appease the ignorant portion of this country. If he doesn't go around promising to bring all the evil-doers to justice and other classics like that, he runs the risk of being labeled a traitor, wimp, coward. and a bleeding heart. You see, to many Americans and pretty much anyone on Fox News, no conflict is solved unless it ends in a country being decimated, so peace agreements or anything diplomatic would be ruled out.

[edczxcvbnm]

I am a person who thinks with all the globalization going on that we will eventually need some form of a world government.

That said the UN is a joke and isn't structured very well. What happens if one day if one of the permant members goes nuts and needs to be attacked? No way a resolution is going to get passed to attack that country because they will veto the resolution and thus it can not pass. The UN sucks and should be ONLY a humanitarian aid organization.

Following up on that most Americans don't give a damn what goes on outside of the united states. Not giving a damn what other countries think is dangerous I think for the most part. It will effect trade and help when you need it.

Let me ask you this. If Bush wins again(God I hope not) then what are other countries going to do? Sit there and complain or are you going to block US imports cut back on exports to with our economy? Thats just an example but WHAT are you going to do that is so bad?

[Dignified Pauper]

The Presidency of the United States is NOT a popularity contest with foreign nations. you are all forgetting, not only did the President initiate war, Congress approved by a LARGE majority. Almost everyone in America thought Saddam has weapons, and the UN has proved it's uselessness before. The UN Needs reformed, if the US hadn't attacked, it would have been the same thing we did with Hitler, with letting him test us in what he could "get away with". Saddam was getting around sanctions and making money, he could have very well started his weapons program again.

Granted, Bush isn't the BRIGHTEST, but I believe he is a man of morals, and wouldn't jeapordize this country ever.

[edczxcvbnm]

The Presidency of the United States is NOT a popularity contest with foreign nations. you are all forgetting, not only did the President initiate war, Congress approved by a LARGE majority. Almost everyone in America thought Saddam has weapons, and the UN has proved it's uselessness before. The UN Needs reformed, if the US hadn't attacked, it would have been the same thing we did with Hitler, with letting him test us in what he could "get away with". Saddam was getting around sanctions and making money, he could have very well started his weapons program again.

While I agree the UN is useless and needs reform you are wrong as hell making an analogy to Hitler. First off Hilter didn't hide what he was doing. He pretty much let everyone know he was making arms again. Saddam didn't have anything and to assume he would start making them in the future is a good idea but because someone MIGHT do something in the FUTURE is the STUPIDEST reason to go to war. Saddam was the least threatening leader to our country in the world. When it came to the weapon inspectors this time he let them go anywhere they want and they found no signs of him looking to start up weapons programs or actively having a weapons program.

HOW is he like hitler? In the fact of the Weapons for Food program? That involves more than one country and didn't have anything to do with weapons. Just making money.

If we are going by countries that break UN resolutions lets go bomb the out of Isreal. They have broken alot more resolutions than Saddam. Your logic is greatly flawed and vastly ignorant.

Granted, Bush isn't the BRIGHTEST, but I believe he is a man of morals, and wouldn't jeapordize this country ever.

Everyone has morals and thus is a moral man...or woMAN.

[ZeZipster]

Let's look at what Bush has in common with the Republican people:

1. Religion
2. A Republican blood-line
3. A some-what natural disregard for the rest of the world.

Aristotle disagreed with the theory of Democracy because he believed it would lead to mob leadership. I think that is what is happening now in America, we acknowledge that Democratic/Republican parties may both be a bad choice for leader ship but the majority won't allow us to defy this... We're left voting for someone we don't like or agree with. You also have to keep in mind, that any one who doesn't agree with Bush may be considered unpatriotic or to hate America. So... what does probability leave us with? A group of people swayed by the fact that they don't want to be considered unpatriotic by the mob.

"I am sick and tired of people who say if you deface and disagree with this administration, then somehow you're not patriotic. And we should stand up and say, 'We are Americans, and have the right to disagree and deface with any administration!'." - Hillary Clinton

I honestly <3 Hillary Clinton's stance on almost everything.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

As I normally do I would jump to France's defense but I quite honestly don't see the point anymore. The country has been so badly demonized by our press and president that I doubt my words will have any effect.

In any event, I do believe that world opinion of America is very important. America is strong, yes, but we cannot think to "Go at it alone." Without the cooperation or respect of the world, it becomes very hard for us as a nation to be taken seriously.

[The Captain]

Having traveled this great vast country of America for 19 years now, I've seen many different perspectives on the world through the eyes of its citizens. Sadly, the general consensus seems to be that there is America and then the rest of the world. Whether we want to admit it or not, America is an Empire, perhaps not in the same sense Rome or England was, but we dominate so much of what happens globally and have such far reaching influences on lives outside of our borders that it should be obvious.

Yet, in that same vein, we as a whole seem to lack general regard for what occurs around the world. True, this can be said of just about any country, that self-interest almost always comes first, but America likes to believe that it is the "Pillar Of Freedom" and the "Defender Of The Free World", which with such broad titles seems to indicate that we should by all accounts at least have an interest in what occurs globally. If 9/11 taught us anything, it's that we are a part of the world, and not above it. We are just as likely to be attacked as anywhere else and I think for the first time in almost 60 years, we as Americans realized that while our lives are intertwined with those abroad. It's always seemed to me that America possesses such endless potential to do good in this world and on many, many accounts it has. Yet, in these past few years, we've become increasingly closed in with our vision. We've focused our energy in places that probably didn't need it and ignored areas that do.

Shame on the entire world for turning a blind eye to what is happening in Africa for instance. Every nation should take responsibility for what has happened there, yet I feel if America wants to promote itself as the greatest leader of freedom and the giver of this "American Dream Of Freedom", we should be focusing just as sharply on Africa as anywhere in the Middle East. We must be the catalyst since at the moment we do possess easily the strongest economy and have the means to create such vast amounts of technology and power at a very rapid rate. If the Bush Administration wants to make us believe that Saddam was a threat, then why stop there? Why not go after every "obvious" threat there is? Korea, Iran, Suadi Arabia, many governments in Africa and the like for starters. Surely it would take some serious planning, not a strength of thiers, and alliance building, yet another weakness, but then at least, for the first time I would be able to applaud someone's ambition.

To make this world a better place, we all must remember that we are human beings first and people of a nation second. We cannot allow petty differences such as language, location, skin color, beliefs and the like to trigger hatred or resentment around the world or we shall all certainly fail. Instead, we must find a way to unite at all costs.

If Bush is reelected for another term, unless he completely changes his policies around the world, America will indeed become resented and I predict the cycle of history will follow: where the dominate power of the time will eventually crumble at the hands of all those who have been oppressed and ignored by it. Its' so tragically ironic that every time a superpower appears, they believe they can make things turn out differently, yet they all follow the same path. It happened to Greece, it happened to Rome, it happened to France, it happened to England, it happened to Germany: You'd better bet your life it can happen here too and unless we begin to take steps to fix some of the obvious cracks, it'll happen very soon.

Take care all.

[Shadow Nexus]

47% of the Spanish have a bad view of the American people? Now, I was expecting for that number to be higher, over here the American stereotype is a fat hamburger eating white man with a baseball cap with two cans of soda attached to the sides of it, with straws coming from them and into the mouth, a US flag in one hand and a shotgun in the other, with a baseball team shirt and without being capable of locating Europe in the map. Another variation has a cowboy hat instead of a baseball cap with cans of soda.

But well, that's just a stereotype, not many people take it seriously, yet the image of the US in Spain is very, very bad, and about Bush, I still haven't seen a single Spanish citizen that claims to like him. I have seen people for the war (Three people) but no people supporting Bush, that is viewed as some kind of ape (And this time I do take that interpretation as right, something I don't do with the image of American people).

Should the US worry about the image the rest of the world has of them? As The Captain said, Bush being re-elected is like US digging it's own grave. I do believe the case is extremely dangerous now for the US, mainly because the Bush administration is full of fascists, and yes, when I say fascist I mean that nearly literally, and I mean "nearly" because at least fascism is more obviously repressive, while the current administration is nicely repressive (with things such as the PATRIOT act). Yes, I do believe Bush is threatening his own country, and I do believe that a second term for him, unless he radically changes his policies- which I doubt- would lead to an unprecedented decay for USA. Wether I if think this decadence is positive or not for history...well, I believe US must fall sooner or later because I never liked empires, but I prefer for it to fall slowly and not with a loud bang, a period of fascism and some nasty conflict full of blood, and the fall into fascism seems to be happening now. Such is the great danger in Democracy, and Plato already warned us about such decedence more than two thousand years ago. Right now, in my opinion, US is very close to the ideas of Machiavelli, basically the Bush administration is just creating threats and means of control in order to alienate the population into believing this administration should be in power. For now, the policies of Bush are making of the US a Panopticon, and even though the order in capitalism already follows a panoptical order in economy, he is extending such order much more than it already was.


So those are my two cents.

[edczxcvbnm]

Those are beer cans! Not soda cans. What an innaccurate sterotype...the rest is spot on though

[Doomgaze]

Woo! Left turns! My favorite sport!

[Big D]

A lot of innocent people have died in foreign countries because of President Bush's policies, opinions and orders. That fact, combined with his seemingly callous disregard for other nations' sovereignty, is bound to lower his appeal to non-US citizens. Basically, he's caused more harm to other countries than to the US; hence why his own people will like him more.