Saturday, October 30, 2004
Since Bush took office, the Vancouver Sun has regularly trotted out editorials decrying Canadian Anti-Americanism. Of particular concern of these Bush apologists has been Carryon Parrish ‘bastards” comment and Françoise Ducros’s “moron” comment. To my knowledge, no Sun columnist has ever taken credit for one of these childish pieces and with good reason; they have their reputations to consider. Instead, the Sun has farmed out the task to various Vancouver writers and in other cases has simply not attributed the articles to anyone. The latest gem appeared this past Wednesday (October 27th). Entitled “Too many Canadians love to Hate Americans”, the piece was written by Marilyn Baker.
The following pretty much says it all: “The careless, inflammatory rhetoric from our leaders and opinion makers resonates with other simplistic fanatics – the ones who chant “Death to America” and follow up those words with box cutters.” During a previous war it was said with reason that loose lips sank ships, but snide remarks about the Bush administration strengthens Al Qaeda’s resolve? What sort of Northern McCarthyism is this?
One of the many failings of Baker’s piece is that she fails to place Canada’s declining opinion of the US into any sort of context. Indeed, she never mentions what other countries think of Bush and company; even though, outside of the US, Bush is one of the least liked US Presidents in history and in every other Western country people favor Kerry to Bush by wide margin and several current heads of state have road Anti-Bush sentiment to power, most notably President South Korea’s Roh Moo-hyun in 2002 and German’s Schroeder that the same year.
It is not just populations of many of the world’s countries that disapprove of Bush; it is also their governments. When John Kerry claimed that he had the backing of several European heads of state, even those on the right recognized (e.g., American Specter) that the right question to ask was not who is on this list but who, if anyone, is not. US journalist Fareed Zakaria, who is hardly a leftist, put the matter succinctly. Bush’s policies have “alienated friends and delighted enemies. Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it.”
Among the ranks of those who were dressed down by Bush officials you can include Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell and former mayor Philip Owen. In a private meeting with then mayor Philip Owen and future mayor Larry Campbell, Walters had threatened action if Vancouver went ahead with a plan for safe injection sites. Namely, Canadians could face major border slow downs. Owen described the meeting thus: “It was the most unsatisfactory meeting of my life.” “The pressure was intense. John Walters had about 30 officers with him, special agents. At the door there was a guy with the bulge of a gun under his clothes.”
Shortly after Vancouver mayor Larry Campbell was given an unprecedented mandate to set up safe injection sites, US drug Czar, John Walters, took the matter public and told a board of trade audience, in what amounted to a thinly disguised threat not to take things too far, that we were only making matters worse.
During that same visit Walters repeated the US completely ridiculous mantra that marijuana is somehow in the same league as cocaine and heroin. In other words, in one foul swoop, Walters had tired to undermine the mandate given Mayor Campbell, challenge the findings of Canadian Senate report, without any argument, declaring marijuana to be less dangerous than alcohol and to derail a plan by Parliament to decriminalize marijuana. Walters’s sermon from the mount was particularly galling given that he admits that skepticism of such a mantra throughout American society is so pervasive that unless until attitudes change attempts to crack down on marijuana use are doomed to failure. Larry Campbell quipped afterwards that the notion that safe injection sites would make things worse not better was akin to saying “flies cause garbage”.
Paul Cellucci, another of Bush’s henchmen, was equally disrespectful of Canadian democracy. Despite the fact that it was becoming obvious that it would be politically impossible for the government to back the US adventure in Iraq without a UN mandate, Paul Cellucci continued to brow beat the Liberals into becoming one of the coalition of the willing. Indeed, Cellucci went so far as to politically damage the government by pointing out that Canada was aiding US efforts on the sly in Iraq and the help they we were giving was in many respects greater than what many in the collation of the willing were providing. “The Canadian naval vessels will provide more support to this war in Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our effort there.” Now, that is gratitude.
Of course the Canadians, Europeans, and South Americans etc. are not alone in feeling ill treated. Many Democrats have a visceral dislike of the Bush administration and their feelings are reflected in American population as a whole. Literally millions upon millions upon millions of Americans simply loath the man; one result of this is that Bush bashing is a billion dollar industry in the States. Another result of this is that while Bush bashing is international in scope it has distinctly American face to it. Michael Moore is arguably its most recognizable figure and a good number of critiques have a Chomskyian like flavor to them. Of course, South Korea’s Roh Moo-hyun and German’s Schroeder are not the only politicians to capitalize on the phenomena either. Howard Dean was the first American politician to capitalize on it and his doing so set the tone for the Democratic primaries.
In the closing months of the campaign the eventual winner of those primaries, John Kerry, has been able to bring another critique to the fore, which has long be present in academic circles, and that appeals to much wider audience, viz., that the President handling of the war in Iraq has been grossly incompetent and that the president is divorced from reality. (In the 2000 campaign Bush received more money from university professors than did Al Gore. This trend as sharply reversed itself. The lion share of money donated is going to Kerry, 2 and half times as much. What has changed is not Bush’s base support. Bush has actually received more money this time around. The only way to describe it is to say the Academy has mobilized against Bush. So much so in fact, Howard Dean received more money than Bush. The trend is particularly pronounced at the Ivy League schools. 95% of the monies given to either candidate at Harvard, Yale went to Kerry and Princeton Bush received $250 and Kerry $40, 950. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/09/13/news/10683.shtml) Such a critique has found favor with a good number of disgruntled conservatives, many of them bloggers (e.g., Andrew Sullivan), and with many media outlets. Once more, people are not mincing the words. The following from the Economist is typical: “It was a difficult call, given that we endorsed George Bush in 2000 and supported the war in Iraq. But in the end we felt he has been too incompetent to deserve re-election."
Although, the Kerry campaign has made similar charges against Bush’s handling of the economy, such charges have not been as well received and such discussions remain confined to the Democratic margins and to academia. The American public does not have and indeed the Western public at large does not have good grasp of economic principles and soothsayers, corporate propagandists and pseudo intellectuals at various right wing think tanks (e.g., The Fraser institute and the Heritage foundation) and various newspaper editorial boards (e.g., Wall street Journal, National Post) have managed to convince them that Bush’s tax cut “voodoo economics” is actually sound economic policy. Princeton’s Paul Krugman and 2001 Nobel Price winner for Economics George Akerlof, who said of Bush’s economic policy that is the worst in the nation’s history and that it amounts to a form “looting”, have only dented such beliefs.
What underpins the charges of incompetence is Bush himself. The Bush’s malapropisms are legendary as are his stunning displays of ignorance. Being impossible to cover up, the Republicans have used these gaffes to help shape is image as a man of the people. As a result, comments by Republicans, such as the following by Richard Pearle, are not hard to come across. “The first time I met Bush 43, I knew he was different. …. One, he didn’t know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he did not know very much.” (Every time I think of Bush and his man of the people image, I can not help but think of the Simpsons where Homer and Barney are selected by NASA to increase America’s waning interest in space exploration. This is unfair I know. Bush is not slow witted. He is, however, ignorant, intellectually lazy uncurious and maddeningly proud of it.)
Now, you would think listening Baker and others of her ilk that the fact that a Chrétien aid carelessly called Bush “moron” in the company someone who pledges allegiance to the US flag each morning and recites the Bush oath to boot, i.e., a National Post reporter, that Bush has never been accused of being divorced from reality by leftists, such as the Washington Post’s George Will, and that he never asked the President of Brazil if Brazil had “black people too”. (The Bush pledge: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States.") However, as noted above, you would be wrong. You would also think that Carryon Parrish is destined to become the next Liberal leader and that although, Bush never thought it important to learn PM “Poutine’s” name in the lead up to the 2000 election, that he cares, or even knows about the remarks about some insignificant back bencher. However, again, you would be wrong. Finally, reading Baker’s piece and many other pieces that appear in the Vancouver Sun -- who could forget that front page editorial? -- you would think that Canadian Anti-Americanism is so bad and so irrational it is akin to anti-Semitism in 1930s Germany. (Baker, in one of the most tactless comparisons ever to appear in the Vancouver Sun, came right out and made such a comparison.) However, once again you would be horribly wrong.
The following pretty much says it all: “The careless, inflammatory rhetoric from our leaders and opinion makers resonates with other simplistic fanatics – the ones who chant “Death to America” and follow up those words with box cutters.” During a previous war it was said with reason that loose lips sank ships, but snide remarks about the Bush administration strengthens Al Qaeda’s resolve? What sort of Northern McCarthyism is this?
One of the many failings of Baker’s piece is that she fails to place Canada’s declining opinion of the US into any sort of context. Indeed, she never mentions what other countries think of Bush and company; even though, outside of the US, Bush is one of the least liked US Presidents in history and in every other Western country people favor Kerry to Bush by wide margin and several current heads of state have road Anti-Bush sentiment to power, most notably President South Korea’s Roh Moo-hyun in 2002 and German’s Schroeder that the same year.
It is not just populations of many of the world’s countries that disapprove of Bush; it is also their governments. When John Kerry claimed that he had the backing of several European heads of state, even those on the right recognized (e.g., American Specter) that the right question to ask was not who is on this list but who, if anyone, is not. US journalist Fareed Zakaria, who is hardly a leftist, put the matter succinctly. Bush’s policies have “alienated friends and delighted enemies. Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it.”
Among the ranks of those who were dressed down by Bush officials you can include Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell and former mayor Philip Owen. In a private meeting with then mayor Philip Owen and future mayor Larry Campbell, Walters had threatened action if Vancouver went ahead with a plan for safe injection sites. Namely, Canadians could face major border slow downs. Owen described the meeting thus: “It was the most unsatisfactory meeting of my life.” “The pressure was intense. John Walters had about 30 officers with him, special agents. At the door there was a guy with the bulge of a gun under his clothes.”
Shortly after Vancouver mayor Larry Campbell was given an unprecedented mandate to set up safe injection sites, US drug Czar, John Walters, took the matter public and told a board of trade audience, in what amounted to a thinly disguised threat not to take things too far, that we were only making matters worse.
During that same visit Walters repeated the US completely ridiculous mantra that marijuana is somehow in the same league as cocaine and heroin. In other words, in one foul swoop, Walters had tired to undermine the mandate given Mayor Campbell, challenge the findings of Canadian Senate report, without any argument, declaring marijuana to be less dangerous than alcohol and to derail a plan by Parliament to decriminalize marijuana. Walters’s sermon from the mount was particularly galling given that he admits that skepticism of such a mantra throughout American society is so pervasive that unless until attitudes change attempts to crack down on marijuana use are doomed to failure. Larry Campbell quipped afterwards that the notion that safe injection sites would make things worse not better was akin to saying “flies cause garbage”.
Paul Cellucci, another of Bush’s henchmen, was equally disrespectful of Canadian democracy. Despite the fact that it was becoming obvious that it would be politically impossible for the government to back the US adventure in Iraq without a UN mandate, Paul Cellucci continued to brow beat the Liberals into becoming one of the coalition of the willing. Indeed, Cellucci went so far as to politically damage the government by pointing out that Canada was aiding US efforts on the sly in Iraq and the help they we were giving was in many respects greater than what many in the collation of the willing were providing. “The Canadian naval vessels will provide more support to this war in Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our effort there.” Now, that is gratitude.
Of course the Canadians, Europeans, and South Americans etc. are not alone in feeling ill treated. Many Democrats have a visceral dislike of the Bush administration and their feelings are reflected in American population as a whole. Literally millions upon millions upon millions of Americans simply loath the man; one result of this is that Bush bashing is a billion dollar industry in the States. Another result of this is that while Bush bashing is international in scope it has distinctly American face to it. Michael Moore is arguably its most recognizable figure and a good number of critiques have a Chomskyian like flavor to them. Of course, South Korea’s Roh Moo-hyun and German’s Schroeder are not the only politicians to capitalize on the phenomena either. Howard Dean was the first American politician to capitalize on it and his doing so set the tone for the Democratic primaries.
In the closing months of the campaign the eventual winner of those primaries, John Kerry, has been able to bring another critique to the fore, which has long be present in academic circles, and that appeals to much wider audience, viz., that the President handling of the war in Iraq has been grossly incompetent and that the president is divorced from reality. (In the 2000 campaign Bush received more money from university professors than did Al Gore. This trend as sharply reversed itself. The lion share of money donated is going to Kerry, 2 and half times as much. What has changed is not Bush’s base support. Bush has actually received more money this time around. The only way to describe it is to say the Academy has mobilized against Bush. So much so in fact, Howard Dean received more money than Bush. The trend is particularly pronounced at the Ivy League schools. 95% of the monies given to either candidate at Harvard, Yale went to Kerry and Princeton Bush received $250 and Kerry $40, 950. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/09/13/news/10683.shtml) Such a critique has found favor with a good number of disgruntled conservatives, many of them bloggers (e.g., Andrew Sullivan), and with many media outlets. Once more, people are not mincing the words. The following from the Economist is typical: “It was a difficult call, given that we endorsed George Bush in 2000 and supported the war in Iraq. But in the end we felt he has been too incompetent to deserve re-election."
Although, the Kerry campaign has made similar charges against Bush’s handling of the economy, such charges have not been as well received and such discussions remain confined to the Democratic margins and to academia. The American public does not have and indeed the Western public at large does not have good grasp of economic principles and soothsayers, corporate propagandists and pseudo intellectuals at various right wing think tanks (e.g., The Fraser institute and the Heritage foundation) and various newspaper editorial boards (e.g., Wall street Journal, National Post) have managed to convince them that Bush’s tax cut “voodoo economics” is actually sound economic policy. Princeton’s Paul Krugman and 2001 Nobel Price winner for Economics George Akerlof, who said of Bush’s economic policy that is the worst in the nation’s history and that it amounts to a form “looting”, have only dented such beliefs.
What underpins the charges of incompetence is Bush himself. The Bush’s malapropisms are legendary as are his stunning displays of ignorance. Being impossible to cover up, the Republicans have used these gaffes to help shape is image as a man of the people. As a result, comments by Republicans, such as the following by Richard Pearle, are not hard to come across. “The first time I met Bush 43, I knew he was different. …. One, he didn’t know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he did not know very much.” (Every time I think of Bush and his man of the people image, I can not help but think of the Simpsons where Homer and Barney are selected by NASA to increase America’s waning interest in space exploration. This is unfair I know. Bush is not slow witted. He is, however, ignorant, intellectually lazy uncurious and maddeningly proud of it.)
Now, you would think listening Baker and others of her ilk that the fact that a Chrétien aid carelessly called Bush “moron” in the company someone who pledges allegiance to the US flag each morning and recites the Bush oath to boot, i.e., a National Post reporter, that Bush has never been accused of being divorced from reality by leftists, such as the Washington Post’s George Will, and that he never asked the President of Brazil if Brazil had “black people too”. (The Bush pledge: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States.") However, as noted above, you would be wrong. You would also think that Carryon Parrish is destined to become the next Liberal leader and that although, Bush never thought it important to learn PM “Poutine’s” name in the lead up to the 2000 election, that he cares, or even knows about the remarks about some insignificant back bencher. However, again, you would be wrong. Finally, reading Baker’s piece and many other pieces that appear in the Vancouver Sun -- who could forget that front page editorial? -- you would think that Canadian Anti-Americanism is so bad and so irrational it is akin to anti-Semitism in 1930s Germany. (Baker, in one of the most tactless comparisons ever to appear in the Vancouver Sun, came right out and made such a comparison.) However, once again you would be horribly wrong.
Comments:
Post a Comment
