Stephan Shakespeare: The BBC is undermining British support for transatlantic common interests

Stephan Shakespeare is CIO of the YouGov polling organisation and founder of 18 Doughty Street Talk TV.

A recent exchange on this site demonstrated the acute need for better communication between Conservatives on either side of the Atlantic.

On Friday, Tim posted on BBC bias against America. The subsequent exchange of comments demonstrated that even here, where the context is a desire to improve British-American relations, we were talking at cross-purposes.

Scott Green argued that BBC bias didn’t matter much: “Get the policy right and perception issues will resolve themselves…” He added:  “Successful policies don't need aggressive advocacy. They sell themselves…. Give me a policy I can sell, and I'll sell it. Simple as that.”

And Atheling2 commented: "The only Americans who take the BBC for its word in disseminating the news are the EU-loving, Leftist leaning types because the BBC reflects their values and mindset. In light of that, now why in the world would Conservatives (i.e. GOP supporters) pay attention to that?"

Scott and Atheling2 make good points which I wouldn’t argue with on their own terms, but they have completely missed the reason why we, on this side of the Atlantic, are so concerned about this. And the fact that they have missed it underlines the deeper problem of British-American misunderstanding.

First Scott: of course good policy comes before good communication strategies. But this discussion is not about Iraq, it’s about the future media context for British-American relations. The next time you want to sell a policy here, you will find ears have been deafened by the BBC.

Secondly Atheling2: it's not American reaction to the BBC that matters to us - it’s the action of BBC bias on the British mindset. And that should matter to you.

So Scott and Atheling2, I have no disagreement with your views, they’re just not the ones that answer this particular problem.

For whatever reason, whether fairly or unfairly, the reputation of America has fallen heavily in Europe over the last five years. You need to understand why that’s important to you (and to us pro-Americans).

Two days after 9/11, a former US Ambassador was a guest on the BBC’s flagship discussion programme, Question Time. He was reduced to tears when he found sections of the audience jeering at him and - even as the bodies were still being pulled from the rubble - saying that America had got what it deserved.

Five years later, we find debates in school about whether the attack on whether 9/11 was caused by the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, that’s right: in modern history, time can go backwards, cause and effect is a river that runs uphill, and justification for mass murder can be retro-fitted.

In this climate of opinion, can you imagine how easy it is to distort American motives and American policies? Please don’t think that next year, or five years from now, when you need support, you’ll be able to rely on another Tony Blair.

We pro-American Brits are not pro-American because we happen to like you. We’re pro-American because we need each other. We face problems together. We can solve them better together. And if the BBC (which you must understand is incredibly powerful at setting the agenda, and at setting the context for political discourse) is allowed to take an active role in promoting anti-Americanism, in driving a wedge between us, then it will be much harder to work together in the future.

America has been significantly weakened over the last five years. It needs to make every possible effort to build itself up again. That includes making sure friends and supporters remain friends and supporters.

Comments

[Daniel VA]

"On Friday, Tim posted on BBC bias against America."

Sorry to be pedantic, but don't you mean on Friday, Tim posted on Gavin Esler's supposed bias against the Republicans?

With respect, you appear to be making the all-too-common mistake of assuming anything other than support for the Republican administration of George W. Bush to be synonymous with antiAmericanism.

[SimonNewman]

"America has been significantly weakened over the last five years. It needs to make every possible effort to build itself up again. That includes making sure friends and supporters remain friends and supporters."

No argument with that, and certainly the BBC is a disgrace. Reform of the BBC can only come from within the UK, though. There seem to be a few faint glimmers from within the BBC that some elements there are trying to address the bias, recognising that it has become so extreme that it is beginning to threaten BBC credibility with mainstream opinion.

[Denis Cooper]

It's not just the BBC - all the broadcast media have been habitually anti-American for as long as I can remember, right back to Vietnam and before. But for decades that didn't change British public opinion, polls repeatedly showing that the British still saw the US as their most trusted ally. Thanks to the stupidity of Bush and Blair, I doubt that is still true. The British are being driven into the arms of the continental Europeans, and at the same time the war in Iraq is helping to split up the UK itself, with the Scots in particular telling each other that they have been dragged into a war by the British government, and are taking disproportionate casualties, and the only way to prevent this happening again in the future is for Scotland to become an independent sovereign state with its own separate armed forces - and not within NATO. The idiot Bush may think that the EU Constitution is a wonderful thing, and maybe he'd also welcome the break up of the UK and even of England and the absorption of the fragments into a US-style European federation. In the future his successors may come to regret this, when they find that although the US may still have a convenient and profitable trading partner in Europe it no longer has any military or even diplomatic allies.

[Perdix]

Well said Daniel VA 11.32. I have been a life-long Tory and have lived in the USA for many years, following the GOP with interest, particularly the fight against Communism (we won that one!). But the Bush Presidency has damaged conservatism with its lies, deceit, incompetence and goverment by fear.Don't shed tears for Bush.

[Scott Green]

Stephan:-

Before we jump headlong into a discussion of the futre media context of British-American relations, we need to accurately map the nature of the 'bias'.

It is different in kind from the sort of broad, reflexive anti-americanism you find on the continent. That kind of anti-americanism is more deep seated and has a longer history than anything you find in Britain. They are two distinct strands of opinion and you are in danger of conflating them. Remember; many friends of America have been cautioning against the unilateralist turn in American foreign policy. There is a longstanding and respected tradition of centrist, pragmatic foreign policy realism in America and Britain that finds itself at odds with this administration and it is wrong and misleading to attempt to paint this critique is iredeemibly 'leftist' or anti-american.

If we were to attempt to pin down the content of this 'bias' you will find it is grounded in opposition to the attempt to circumvent the rules-based system of global governance in particular and aggressive unilateralism more generally. As a middle-ranking power, our foreign policy is shaped by the need for alliance building and cooperative strategies more broadly.

For better or worse, these are the principles that govern British foreign policy thinking. And since its emergence as a great power in the early part of the last century, America has partnered us in this project. The structure of global governance is an Anglo-American construct. It is American imperatives and diplomacy that have shaped the modern international system, with its interlocking alliances and treaty arrangements, and it is largely because America is seen to have departed from this tradition that it is viewed with increasing suspicion.

So if you want to talk about the future media context of British-American relations, you need to understand that this distinction - between support for and rejection of rules-based global governance - is the pivot or hinge upon which they turn. An arrogant, aggressive, unilateralist America, contemptuous of the transatlantic alliance system, dismissive of cooperative strategies and wilfully circumventing the rules-based system of global governance will find few friends in Britain, or elsewhere.

The British see value in these institutions, and value, borne of necessity, in multilateralism more generally. When American conservatives set about dismantling or otherwise undermining the interlocking alliances that underpin the system, even though the argument can be made that elements of that system have outlived their usefulness, ie. that they are, in that horribly modish phrase, no longer 'fit for purpose', they represent an alien tradition, far removed from the longstanding principles of Anglo-American cooperation.

So, in response to your claim that the BBC is underming British support for transatlantic common interests, I would argue in the first instance that British and American interests are best served by a rules-based system of global governance; secondly, that it is the unilateralist turn in American foreign policy that is undermining those interests, not anything the BBC has said or done; and finally, therefore, that my guiding principle still holds: get the policy right and the perception issues will resolve themselves.

[stephan shakespeare]

Scott, that's a strong argument and I don't disagree with most of it. I think there is more to British/BBC anti-Americanism, though, than its dislike of what you see as the Bush administration's undermining of a "rules-based system of global governance". Look at the BBC reporting of the New Orleans tragedy, or its reporting of American reaction to Kyoto. Look at the readiness to distrust American motives at every turn. Germany, France, and even Iran are usually treated with more basic respect. (By respect I mean a willingness to accept that an agent has an acceptable rationale, and a reasonable motivation, even when one disagrees with the policy).

Daniel, I agree that the BBC's bias stems most from a dislike of republicans (Clinton they loved), but I think that should still be termed anti-American bias. The American system contains the Democrats and the Republicans. To treat one of them with respect and not the other is therefore a bias against America per se. They justify their stereotyping of America as ignorant, greedy and dangerous by reference to republicans they don't like. And they want to stereotype America that way because it represents a powerful force in favour of capitalism.

I sat next to a seasoned BBC figure at a dinner a few days ago who half-agreed about its institutional anti-American, soft-left bias. His argument was interesting: he said that the BBC was becoming more aware of itself in this regard and was trying to change - but that attempt to change was, to him, just as infuriating. He said that the BBC always creates a 'bubble' within which it places the range of views it considers reasonable. If it's starting to move a little more to the centre, it still has the 'bubble' of 'what ought we believe' - whereas a healthier attitude to broadcasting would be to allow and respect many different voices without seeking to impose a viewpoint.

[rightwingprof]

Here's my American slant on the US and UK.

[atheling2]

Well, I hate to break the news to our British friends, but it's becoming more and more apparent to us Yanks that we have no allies anymore, except for Israel, perhaps, and I fear that if the liberal Democrats take over the White House we will abandon Israel to their enemies in the Middle East. Ever since the UK has joined the EU, which was spawned from a desire to compete with American dominance, the "special relationship" has been strained.

And this isn't just about President Bush, (can some people refrain from calling him "stupid", it's so damned cliched and juvenile, as well as disrespectful. At least have some regard for the OFFICE, please), it's about the growing overt anti-Americanism which spews from Europe on a daily basis. The Left in this country are anti-British. They perceive the U.K. as the poster boy of Imperialism and the Great White Man. The Right, like myself, are mainly Anglophiles, seeing the UK as cousins across the pond, sharing the same values and language. However, the Right's view is changing.

Guess what? More and more Americans don't care. Do you want to know how we see you people over there? D-O-O-M-E-D. Europe is becoming Eurabia. Europe is a dead man walking. Europe won't matter anymore. Soon Europe will be irrelevant, and we here are thinking about our own survival because we don't want to go the same route that Europe took.

Look, it's about demographics. Within 20 years Europe will be Muslim. Indigenous Europeans are not having babies. Muslims are. It's as simple as that.

We have our own internal battles to fight and we are hindered by a blind, politically correct Liberalism which pervades our nation. We need to address that. That's our priority here in America, as Conservatives see it. For now we are going through the motions, pretending that our relationship with Europe matters... but in our hearts we know it won't anymore.

For the past year I have been mourning the demise of Europe. I have watched and read the news about the death throes of a once grand civilization which had a strong and proud history filled with life and death struggles always overcome by strong sense of tradition and culture and FAITH. Christian faith. That's all gone now.

The Europe I see is like the the people of HG Wells' Time Machine. The Eloi: beautiful, passive, and utterly indifferent to impending slavery and death by the Morlocks.

The grief I hold for the end of Europe is now passing. It has turned to resolve. Resolve to save our nation from the same destructive path, and all our energies must be focused on that. If it means isolationism, so be it. Securing our borders, severely limiting immigration, and increasing pressure to flush out terrorist activities within our land is a priority, as well as maintaining a strong military.

One of the problems we also see is the fate of the nuclear weapons held by European nations once the Muslims take over... we cannot allow that. Nor can we permit Muslim nations to develop nuclear power. So conflict on European land will ensue when it is overrun by Islam, unless, by some great miracle, some European leaders see the impending disaster and rid themselves of those weapons before they fall into evil hands. I'm not holding my breath, however.

Yes, we have a relationship with Britain right now, which was cemented in our cooperation in fighting two World Wars together. However, unfortunately, many conservative Americans see that there is a terrible cancer in Britain (and Europe) which is metastasizing as a result of blind leadership and politically correct policies with no end in sight. Unfortunately, there are few in Congress who recognize that danger which can grow here... but we have more time than Europe and time is what we need in order to turn things around.

BTW, by "tightening" immigration, I mean towards Muslims. We are more than happy to have indigenous conservative Europeans come to our country.

[matt wright]

Generally an interesting debate on BBC and the relationship between US and UK.

I do feel that Iraq has not helped and we have abandoned previous modes of foreign policy which were more pragmatic. Clearly this has understandbly inflamed anti-US feeling in some quarters.

However a fair-minded person could hardly fail to notice the growth in seemingly irrational Anti-American feeling in the UK before Iraq. Sections of the media have fueled this and the BBC has undoubtedly contributed,

Matt

[stephan shakespeare]

Atheling2, you leave me depressed. If you think your erstwhile allies are no longer allies, then the best way forward isn't to dismiss them as doomed and irrelevant.

It's obvious, surely, that America and Israel can't go it alone - that if you try to, you will have defeated yourself.

It would be much better if we all worked a little harder at this relationship.

[tired and emotional]

Atheling2 has unfortunately hit the nail on the head, or perhaps I should say, cut the throat of the christian. It is all about demographics and Europe is indeed finished. There are some signs that England is stirring but it may be too late to turn the demographics around. I hope the US will find room for us when we have squandered our legacy, perhaps we won't deserve the shelter.

I will say though that, despite the failure of successive governments to understand the pernicious nature of Islam, the UK is at least expending blood and treasure in two Middle eastern countries alongside the US. More than you can say for the eurotrash, Nato is a joke. Both our countries have left-liberal forces to defeat and we nontheless still need to be able to accept that we won't always be right and they won't always be wrong (well, it could happen).

[Denis Cooper]

"Ever since the UK has joined the EU, which was spawned from a desire to compete with American dominance, the "special relationship" has been strained."

Atheling2, the US government wanted the UK to join - in fact the CIA even ran a covert exercise to fund pro-EEC propaganda, see eg pp 12 onwards here:

http://www.ercouncil.org/B&O301.pdf

Even now the US government is still actively pushing for more EU integration, even though that will probably be against US interests in the long term. It will certainly be against the interests of the British people.

[atheling2]

Mr. Shakespeare:

I am sorry that you feel depressed by my remarks. It was not my intention, and I think I have made it abundantly clear that I am not rejoicing over the death of Europe, however I think I have spoken the plain truth.

When I read or hear comments like Scott Green's I realize that we have profound differences in political philosophy.

"I would argue in the first instance that British and American interests are best served by a rules-based system of global governance; secondly, that it is the unilateralist turn in American foreign policy that is undermining those interests, not anything the BBC has said or done..."

America can and should act unilaterally when it is in her best interests to do so. All nations with any sense of pragmatism should. When nations forsake their national interests for purposes of "getting along", and when they embrace detrimental policies in order gain "popularity" (isn't that rather adolescent?), then those nations are headed down the path of self destruction. It is becoming very apparent to Conservatives in America that our "estwhile" allies' interests no longer coincide with our own. As a matter of fact, it's quite evident that nothing would please them more than to see America destroyed. Many in Europe gloated after 9/11: "America got what it deserved". Are we expected to align ourselves with people possessing that kind of vicious attitude towards us? Indeed not; I should hope that we have more self respect and common sense than that.

Mr. Shakespeare, your comment "It's obvious, surely, that America and Israel can't go it alone - that if you try to, you will have defeated yourself" puzzles me. Didn't Britain once say, during her darkest hours in WWII, that she would go on "alone" after the capitulation of France? Surely you are not suggesting that America or Israel lack the same fortitude once displayed by the valiant British in those days.

You mentioned that we are talking at cross purposes. I heartily agree. I find it a bit ludicrous that Europeans find it necessary for America to worry about her "image" overseas and how the BBC is undermining our "special relationship" when Europe has destroyed herself and that relationship with treachery, distortion, overt hatred and suicidal policies. In light of that situation, how do you expect us to "work" at the relationship? That's like expecting a married couple to continue the marriage when one partner has consistently abused the other with absolutely no attempt to remedy his words or actions. Can you justify your position that the entire burden of working out our "relationship" belongs to America? Do you not see that Europe's hostile attitude and fatal policies are what has undermined that relationship?

I think I have stated this before and I shall again. If there is a problem with the British Broadcasting Corporation, then it's up to the British to fix it. We Yanks can't, won't and shouldn't do a damned thing about it. Funny, how so many in the world complain that America meddles in everyone's business, yet they expect us to solve all the problems, even when it's obviously not ours to fix.

[rightwingprof]

"Remember; many friends of America have been cautioning against the unilateralist turn in American foreign policy"

Just because you gave up your national sovereignty doesn't mean we will. We have no obligation to get permission from you, and most importantly, the EU or UN, to defend ourselves.

There is no "global governance," particularly from a corrupt organization that serves only to support tyrants. And there won't be any "global governance" as long as the United States exists.

You'd best learn that now.

[atheling2]

Mr. Cooper:

Indeed, American policy which supported the UK joining the EU was detrimental to both nations. I strongly opposed it, as did many Conservatives here. It is primarily the Liberals and the Democrats who support the EU and its socialist policies. However, even now the current Administration supports Turkey joining the EU, which is considered disastrous among many Conservative Americans. It is a valid criticism of the Bush Administration.

As I have stated in a previous comment, America has to fix her own backyard regarding the growing Islamic menace. We are watching Europe, and we see that we must not follow her path. Unfortunately, many of us still have our heads in the sand, as the recent mid term elections have proved.

[atheling2]

tired and emotional:

Believe me, if the UK stirred herself to overthrow the policies which are destroying her society and her culture, we Conservatives in America would cheer her on and give her whatever support she needs to rid herself of that cancer. Nothing would please me more than to see Great Britain as she formerly was: Great.

[stephan shakespeare]

Atheling2, I don't think we ever suggested that America should fix the BBC! Of course it's up to us to deal with how our taxes are spent. What I was saying is that America should be concerned with how America is viewed in Britain.

It's disconcerting to find myself, as a supporter of America and American conservatism, cast as insufficiently respectful of American power. I'm glad you brought up WW2, because quite obviously Britain could not have 'gone it alone': you precisely make my point. And I'm also glad you use the metaphor of a marriage. My view of a marriage is that when it goes wrong, you have a profound duty to keep working to make it better.

If you really believe that you are 'consistently abused' by Britain, then this site is all the more necessary.

[atheling2]

Mr. Shakespeare:

The gentleman of the previous post suggested that the GOP "work" with the BBC. That is what I am referring to, and that is what I object to.

Back to the metaphor, a marriage cannot work if only one partner carries the burden to make it so. There is nothing that America can and should do to "change" her image or make herself more "likeable" to Europeans. For one thing, to do so is to sell herself out, and to surrender her sovereignty as a nation. Won't happen, especially under the Bush Administration, thank God. That's why he is so hated among Europeans. Secondly, as I've stated rather brutally before, what's the point of trying to make oneself likeable to a dead man?

Furthermore, my assertions of "abuse" were in reference to Europe. Do you deny that Europe has consistently and systematically obstructed American interests, betrayed American friendship, and conducted covert dealings with American enemies? I speak of Europe, sir, not just Britain, however Britain is a part of the European Union, is it not?

You cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. After all of Europe's treachery and abuse, can you expect Americans to believe that Britain is not a part of it? I spent 3.5 weeks in the UK on holiday and I met some real hostility towards Americans, especially among the younger Britons. They seem to forget that we were once an ally of their nation. And that "forgetting" is not the fault of Americans. It's the fault of the British people.

For all your protestations, you are strangely silent about Europe's hostility towards America, in tone, in policy and in rhetoric. Please, sir, do you deny it? Will you acknowledge it?

Also, Mr. Shakespeare, do you admit that Europe is a dying civilization? Are you aware of her declining birthrate, which is dangerously below replacement level? What say you to that? Why do you ignore it? Why do you persist in wanting America to "care" about her image in Europe (and subsequently in Britain) when Europe will be no more?

Why this denial? This silence?

[Denis Cooper]

rightwingprof -

"Just because you gave up your national sovereignty doesn't mean we will"

atheling2 -

"For one thing, to do so is to sell herself out, and to surrender her sovereignty as a nation. Won't happen, especially under the Bush Administration, thank God."

Firstly, the UK has not yet given up any national sovereignty. At present the EU is still no more than an international organisation established by treaty between its sovereign member states. Some say we have "lent" sovereignty to Brussels, but as it is only lent, not transferred, it can be recovered at any time simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and withdrawing from the EU. Personally I would not even accept that: in my view, we have lent power, but not legal sovereignty; our national sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired; and it is in fact by sovereign acts that we have agreed not to exercise that sovereignty on many matters for the time being, but instead submit to the results of majority votes. However like a muscle if sovereignty is not exercised it will wither away. The proposed EU Constitution is designed to hasten that process, and take a crucial step towards a federal structure akin to that of the US, and for those of us who oppose that Constitution it was not all helpful that Rice explicitly, and Bush implicitly, expressed support for it, see eg:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/749bfa38-85c5-11d9-9011-00000e2511c8.html

"Bush boost for EU pro-treaty campaign"

Secondly, I suggest you put "North American Union" into google and see what comes up. You may say that this is all an exaggerated conspiracy theory, but then that's what we were told about the so-called "Common Market", and those who issued warnings about the intentions behind the EEC and where it would lead have been proved correct.

[Scott Green]

Athelring2:-

Noone is suggesting that you should not act unilaterally when it is in your interests. My argument is that it rarely is. I take the Kissingerian line that America needs to design a diplomacy that is based above all on the widest possible international consensus. The biggest questions facing American policy planners over the short term are the questions of terrorism and nuclear proliferation; over the medium term it is how to integrate emerging powers like Iran, China and India into the global system. In both cases, it is the hard slog of diplomacy and alliance building that will secure your interests, not preventive war.

In the short term, a sensible anti-terrorism and anti-proliferation strategy should seek to (i) co-opt the big regional powers in South East Asia and the Middle East into the effort by binding them to a series of interlocking alliances, and (ii) provide a mix of security guarantees and incentives to the main transgressor states like North Korea and Iran. Remember; Iran's nuclear programme was mothballed until Bush developed his doctrine of preventive war. It was the failure to provide security guarantees in particular in 2003 after diplomatic overtures from Iran that caused them to restart their nuclear programme. They drew the entirely reasonable conclusion that if they did not develop a deterrant capability they too would be attacked and so, by adopting an overly aggressive posture, discarding the alliance system and falling back on the doctrine of preventive war, all your counter-proliferation strategy has succeeded in doing is accelerating Iran's drive to nuclear capability and increasing the threat of proliferation more generally. Ditto terrorism. States under threat of attack by an overwhelmingly superior military force are more rather than less likely to develop their capacity to wage war asymmetrically and by proxy, through support for terrorism.

Similarly with the medium term imperatives. The unilateralist approach you so admire is deeply counterproductive. The biggest foreign policy failure of the last century was the failure to integrate emerging powers like Japan and Germany into the global system. As the world moves towards multipolarity we need to develop a set of policy instruments to better manage these shifts in the global equilibrium. In my view, the best way to manage China's transition to great power status is to bind her to a rules-based system. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration achieved a number of successes by binding China into a series of agreements on matters as diverse as human rights, intellectual property rights, free trade and foreign investment protection. On these big questions of the global equilibrium, security and trade the optimal course is strategic partnership with countries like China; not rivalry. We are better off with countries like China and Iran working within rather than outside a rules-based system. That is more rather than less likely to happen if we play a rules-based game.

Stephan:-

In the light of these considerations, it is easy to see how you arrive at the recent opinion poll finding that the majority of Britons think Bush is a bigger threat to world peace than Ahmadinejad or Kim Jon Il. It is not, I think, as you and Tim would have us believe, because of deep-seated anti-americanism or media bias, but because the unilateralist turn in American foreign policy and the Bush doctrine of preventive war are both seen to have been, and are, as a matter of fact, deeply destabilising.

[stephan shakespeare]

Atheling2:
"For all your protestations, you are strangely silent about Europe's hostility towards America, in tone, in policy and in rhetoric. Please, sir, do you deny it? Will you acknowledge it?"

For heaven's sake, the whole point of this and the previous thread is that we do think that much of Europe and the UK is hostile to the US, and we wish it were not so.

But you seem unable to engage with people who are trying to be on your side.

[Oliver McCarthy]

The reality of course is that America and Europe have dramatically parted ways since the end of the Cold War. President Bush himself has done nothing to alienate European opinion except to exist. From the moment he was elected only a tiny minority of people in Britain, even in the Conservative Party (and let alone in Europe!), have had any idea what he is actually about. Iraq has had no discernible effect on his reputation over here. And of course he hasn't "driven" the British public into the arms of Europe. Quite the reverse in fact, since Michael Howard's bizarre attitude to the White House left Bush all but a whisker short of endorsing the EU Constitution!

From the Conservative Party's point of view of course this is particularly sad, since far from being an "idiot" Bush is in fact the most successful Thatcherite politician in the West today (with the possible exception of John Howard in Australia), with approval ratings that have most of the time been a good deal better than David Cameron's. That the Tory Pary has such a slight regard for him rather suggests that we are doomed to a decade of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, given that the Tories unlike the Republicans still have very little understanding of how to win elections, let alone of how to attract small-c conservative voters.

There also seems to be a certain degree of silly name-calling going on here. The Iraq War was not "unilateral" or "pre-emptive", or any of the other empty, meaningless adjectives that have been attached to it. Tony Blair lied about the Iraq War: President Bush did not. (Michael Ancram lied about it as well. How many Tories in this country complain about that?)

The Republicans have of course alienated a lot of their own supporters in the last couple of years (indeed in the last couple of months), but not nearly as much as the Tories have, and there's no reason to suppose a breath of fresh air at the top won't improve things. More to the point, the Democrats will almost certainly scare Republican voters back to the polls pretty quickly, once they've got back to yanking up federal taxes and calling for more baby-killers in the Supreme Court.

The Republicans have taken a tumble, but it hasn't been anything like as bad as the Tories' fall from grace in 1997. As things stand, the Republicans led by John McCain stand a better chance of winning in 2008 than the Tories led by David Cameron the next year (and McCain will be much more rightwing than Bush on Iraq and abortion). The Port-faced buffoon tendency in the Conservative Party is going to have to accept this.

Otherwise we're going to be in the Brown-and-smelly for a very long time.

[atheling2]

Mr.Scott Green says:

"it is easy to see how you arrive at the recent opinion poll finding that the majority of Britons think Bush is a bigger threat to world peace than Ahmadinejad or Kim Jon Il. It is not, I think, as you and Tim would have us believe, because of deep-seated anti-americanism or media bias, but because the unilateralist turn in American foreign policy and the Bush doctrine of preventive war are both seen to have been, and are, as a matter of fact, deeply destabilising."

I find it incredible that Scott Green and perhaps others here do not find that poll's results appalling. Instead we see his rationalization in support of those statistics. It's interesting that Israel is the only nation who did NOT see the US as a grave threat. What does that tell us?

Mr. Scott Green: "No one is suggesting that you should not act unilaterally when it is in your interests. My argument is that it rarely is. I take the Kissingerian line that America needs to design a diplomacy that is based above all on the widest possible international consensus."

Absolute crap. In the light of the latest poll and other strong evidence of anti American bias, we see all the more reasons why we must NEVER cave in to the international community's consensus. I'll speak plainly: THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY (with the exception of Israel) HATES AMERICA AND WISHES TO SEE ITS DOWNFALL. This hatred existed long before President Bush came to the White House. I saw it in Europe in the 1990's when Clinton was President.

And you expect us to surrender our sovereignty to them? That is pure idiocy and suicide. Do you actually think that Americans should trust the advice of those who hate us? Absurd. Positively ridiculous. Again, I point out the suicidal policies of Europe. Do you think we are so stupid as to wish to go their route?

Well, Mr. Shakespeare, you criticize me for being "unable" to engage with those who are "trying" to be on our side. "Trying" is the operative word. So far we have seen comments here (from non Americans) which reflect little or no attempt to be on the American "side" - indeed we see justifications for why the American "side" must be dismissed. We see evidence that the American "side" must dissolve and partake of the international community's side, which hates America.

I guess the marriage is over, isn't it?

[atheling2]

Hello, Oliver:

John McCain will never win the Republican Primary. He has alienated the Republican Party with his loose cannon tactics (Group of 14), compromising the Party's strength, and objecting to waterboarding at Gitmo.

Most American conservatives dismiss him now as a RINO. In many straw polls he is last on a list of possible contenders. Look to Tom Tancredo or Newt Gingrich (yes, he may have a comeback).

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

What worries me about the BBC is the level of incompetence when it comes to coverage of American politics. Their coverage of the election last week was dire and several of their US based journalists got things completely wrong viz how the American system works. It did not help that at least one of their number actively gloated on air at the Republicans problems.

There was also a lack of an ability to put it into context by comparing it to other mid-term elections et al. Near as I can tell all you need to have to cover the US for the BBC is a deep loathing of everything American.

It will be interesting to see if the Conservatives will head the example of the Republicans this cycle (ie don't piss off your base, take you support for granted et al.).