Power not only corrupts, it also tends to isolate

Michael Ehioze-Ediae writes:

Niall Ferguson wrote in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday about a Gallup poll which revealed a rise in anti-American sentiments across the globe. The results show that it is not just America’s enemies who hate her but her supposed allies. For example it was revealed that two-thirds of Jordanians and 79% of Saudis had unfavourable views towards America.

The results of the poll also showed that the most radical groups in the Middle East were the educated elite. Ferguson claimed that this contradicted the established view that political radicalism was the result of lack of education and poverty. In addition he revealed that the Islamic radicals were more supportive of democracy than the moderates. This is because in his view, the moderates fear that democracy gives radicals the opportunity to gain power.

In Europe, the results were similar. Only 56% of British people were pro-American and 38% of Germans felt that America showed concern for its allies. This was in contrast to the fact that the majority of Americans polled held highly favourable views of Britain and Germany.

On the positive side, he pointed out the fact that very few Europeans welcome China becoming a serious military rival to the United States and there was overwhelming opposition to Iran becoming a nuclear power. Further, in France and Germany there was a significant amount of hostility to the radicals of Hamas.

However, 25% of Indians, 50% of Pakistanis and 20% of Egyptians favoured a nuclear armed Iran. In Britain, 33% of those surveyed welcomed the success of Hamas in last year’s elections.

Comments

[TomTom]

Aren't opinion polls fun ? I bet lots of countries in Europe would have polled in 1940 urging Britain not to fight on.

Who cares what Jordanians think ? The country is 60% Palestinian.

Do they have polls showing how many people in Britain loathe Arabs ?

[Matt Davis]

This all does beg the question why isn't politically correct multicultural tolerance a two way street then doesn't it?

[Oliver McCarthy]

Obviously if you factor out the numbers of people who quite like America but don't like President Bush and his policies then the data will be more useful but less sensational. Whatever Ferguson's dotty ideas about American imperialism may be (this week), the truth is that people do still rather identify states with authorities and countries with the people who are in charge of them. In fact the world is still very much head-over-heels in love with American culture and money, and with the protection America affords us from external aggressors: the world doesn't like war; it doesn't like to be governed by a small elite of rich White men (with an even smaller elite of rich Jews amongst them); and it doesn't like Christianity. People don't want a world without America: they want a world without conservatives.

[mamapajamas]

Oliver, which "people" do you represent? Are you a duly elected spokesman? If not, who decided that you may speak for "people"?

The "small elite of rich White men" applies more adequately to liberals, who, at least in the US, have NO party leadership in ANY of the minority groups. It took Republican presidents to put minorities into MEANINGFUL cabinet positions. Clinton completely fluffed his chance to change what the Democrats do.

The entire idea that US conservatives are somehow anti-woman and anti-minority is a canard. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were both REPUBLICAN laws that were passed because virtually all of the Republicans and a tiny minority of Northeastern Democrats supported them against the Democrat congressional majority.

Where we get the reputation for being "racist" is that we think that set-asides and affirmative action programs are racist in themselves, and say, "We will give you a hand because you are obviously incapable of doing anything without government help." That is chauvenistic piggery, IMHO. It is also in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to set aside exceptions for anyone due to race or creed.

I can go more into the religion thing, which in the US would be considered none of your business, but I don't have time for this nonsense right now.

[TomTom]

It is frankly bizarre that since 9/11 Muslim immigration to the USA has

[TomTom]

INCREASED

[Matt Davis]

Not necessarily bizarre at all TomTom, after all by significantly increasing their resident populations in Europe, Muslims have accomplished a degree of influence, and defference from the wider society, that Americam Muslims can only dream of.

I have seen it suggested several times that the Koran calls, as a deliberate strategy, for the faithful to emigrate in order to bring Islam to non-believer nations. However having not read it myself I can't say for sure that that is the case.

[Denise]

I must say that I am a bit sick and tired of hearing that conservatives are "white rich men". I am a white Christian woman, yes, but far from rich. And all other Christian conservatives that I know are also not rich. We work average jobs for a living, live paycheck to paycheck and have no extra money stashed away. We're mainstream middle class America. The very people who keep saying we are rich are the liberals who are completely out of touch with us and are mostly celebrities. Talk about rich.

[TomTom]

Denise, welcome. Of course there are Christian women and essential they are, but the phrase you quote identifies The Leftist, the Gramscian.

They have their new Secular Religion with its Demon being White + Male and of course "Rich" whenever they want their Secular Trinity.

Their "gospel" is the idea of Rich White Men as Moloch and the oppressed feminists, ethnics, and assorted rainbow coalition being sacrificed to Moloch in their unsullied innocence - a sort of Secular Virginity Cult.

This is rather like the French Revolution with its fake religion Cult of the Supreme Being

French

and Robespierre doing excatly what Himmler did and every other such regime - create a Religion of Man.

This is just the same. Be happy Denise, this is reminiscent of what Jesus went through in the desert (Luke 4:1-13) during his 40 days. It is a challenge to faith but faith grows stronger as each generation has to resist the Man-made Cults that have sprouted since the French Revolution.

Welcome to this Blog !

[Sepulchre]

If I could quote one poll which would discount all the quoted polls above I would pick one from Mark Steyn's seminal book "America Alone". This is where it came from:

"...a poll published in the weekly Die Zeit showed that 31 percent of Germans younger than 30 "think that there is a certain possibility that the U.S. government ordered the attacks of 9/11."
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050608-095942-4588r.htm

People are stupid, polls refelect that.

[Sandy P]

Ferguson needs to get out of the Northeast.

[Denise]

Thanks, TomTom! Yes, I have heard of Gramscian. The Italian communist, right? I never heard of Moloch, though. Interesting. Thanks for that info.

Sepulchre,

Ah, yes, the conspiracy theory about the US government ordering the attacks. There are people here who believe that, too. There are also people saying that dynamite was used to bring the twin towers down.

[TomTom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

Denise, Old Testament

Leviticus 18.21

And you shall not let any of your seed pass through Mo'lech, neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.

[Paul Marks]

I am surprised that 33% of the British public have even heard of Hamas - let alone think they are good thing.

As for the supposedly wicked policies of President Bush - would these be the welfare state policies at home (no-child-left-behind in education, the Medicare extention in health and so on), or the President Wilson - F.D.R. wars for democracy overseas?

The policies are certainly not conservative, they are mainstream Democrat - or what was mainstream Democrat as recently as J.F.K. or L.B.J.

Even tax rate cuts did not use to be against Democrat principles (at least not when J.F.K. suggested them and L.B.J. put them through Congress).

"Rich white men" - most of the super rich (the billionaires) backed John Kerry at the last election, and the Kerry family are super rich (the Bush family are not way up there, although they are well off).

And (of course) President Bush has appointed more blacks and hispanics than any previous President.

"Male", "white", "from rich family"

Like Condi Rice?

[LC Mamapajamas]

Paul M, an excellent commentary :).

To which I'd like to add the observation for Oliver that the current US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, was the daughter of an Alabama share cropper... which is about as poverty-stricken as you can GET in the US. She got to where she is with her brains and determination. If she would only run, I'd vote for her for president in 2008.

But she seems determined not to enter the race.

[Oliver McCarthy]

Well, fiddle-dee-dee!

Sorry folks, but you're preaching to the converted, if this is all aimed at me.

Try explaining to Osama bin Laden that he shouldn't be angry with Condi because his daddy was a rich Saudi oil billionaire and Condi's pa was a share cropper from Alabama. Just see how far you get.

If you were to substitute Clinton for Bush then you'd get better polls in Britain, Canada, Australia (probably) and most of Europe (almost definitely). I'm not so sure about Arabia or Jordan, where if anything Hillary would probably make things worse. But that's rather what Ferguson's polls suggested in the first place: in the liberal West Bush has made America less popular, and in places like Iran he has made America less unpopular.

If distinguishing between Bush and America is so outrageous, I'd like to know why. Only a small minority of Americans have ever voted for him, and he's now phenomenally unpopular even with those that did. Personally though I don't think of "imperialism" as being a popularity contest, and I don't particularly want America to be massively popular in the world at large either. There are plenty of things about America I actually don't much care for. And for me the fact that "Yanks like to be liked" is one of the things that counts against both them and against the international order (like it or lump it!) which depends upon them.

International order and stability depend on the use of force: they depend on power: they're about "Who rules?" Bush has used that power, and the world is without a doubt a safer and more stable place than it was before he came to power. This hasn't made him more popular, either at home or abroad, bur for me that's not unexpected and it's not the issue either.