# Love 'em or hate 'em?



## maxiogee

Something from another thread caught my eye and set me wondering…



AngelEyes said:


> Whether you hate him or not, you should know that millions of Americans think he's wonderful.



Now, although that was written about someone else, it struck me that more and more it applies, universally, to our political leaders.

It would appear that the days of "I don't think much of X" or "I suppose Y is okay" seem to be a thing of the past. Is this a result of the increasingly oppositional and confrontational style of political 'debate' and mass-media attempts to boil down politics to a few major issues which divide the players - and ignoring waste swathes of policies where they agree?

How polarised is the perception, in your country, of the leading politicians of other countries which impact on your country.


----------



## Hockey13

maxiogee said:


> Something from another thread caught my eye and set me wondering…
> 
> 
> 
> Now, although that was written about someone else, it struck me that more and more it applies, universally, to our political leaders.
> 
> It would appear that the days of "I don't think much of X" or "I suppose Y is okay" seem to be a thing of the past. Is this a result of the increasingly oppositional and confrontational style of political 'debate' and mass-media attempts to boil down politics to a few major issues which divide the players - and ignoring waste swathes of policies where they agree?
> 
> How polarised is the perception, in your country, of the leading politicians of other countries which impact on your country.


 
I think among extremely fundamentalist Republicans in this country, there is a serious, and dangerous, hatred for President Chirac of France. It boggles my mind because the only two reasons that exist for this are that he opposed the US's actions in Iraq and he's French. I've seen the blind hatred for this man many times and each time something inside me gets a little darker for having witnessed pure ignorance. These same people will tend to love Prime Minister Blair for supporting the US's actions in Iraq.

Mind you, these are the same folks who will tell you, and have told me many times in the past, that not supporting the president equates to treason. "If you don't like this country then you kin giiiiiiiit out." My response is usually, "I suppose you would say the same thing to Martin Luther King, Jr.?" I loathe ignorance.


----------



## Tsoman

I think the republican party is more diverse than democrats think, which is why President Bush is becoming less popular for many of them.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

maxiogee said:


> How polarised is the perception, in your country, of the leading politicians of other countries which impact on your country.



I think the vast majority of people here have a strong antipathy towards Bush. 

I've met quite a share of them who hate him just because, you know, it's the "right" thing to do and who know squat about American politics otherwise (though it could be argued that it's the foreign politics that matters the most to them).

(I don't like people who mean things just because it's what everybody else do; if you're for abortions, gay marriage or invading Denmark, ok, but unless you have thought-out arguments about them, few people will take you seriously)

Norway and Russia are doing a lot of cooperating with regards to fishing rights &c, and the perception about Putin, too, is that of a corrupt fundamentalist with few regards to human rights.


----------



## Hockey13

Tsoman said:


> I think the republican party is more diverse than democrats think, which is why President Bush is becoming less popular for many of them.


 
I understand...I'm not a Democrat myself. Notice my noun modifiers next to Republican.


----------



## ElaineG

Tsoman said:


> I think the republican party is more diverse than democrats think, which is why President Bush is becoming less popular for many of them.


 
Agreed.

One odd thing that happens (probably in every country) is that people think that the enemy of their enemy is their friend. Thus, Hugo Chavez is George Bush's enemy and I hate W, so Hugo Chavez must be OK.

Among my lefty friends, there is not only widespread worship of Chavez (not shared by the Venezuelan immigrants I know), but I have heard praise of Ahmadinejad and even speculation that Kim Jong Il might not be as bad as he seems.

These same people, in another generation, would have defended Mao and Stalin. 

This really irks me, because I have nothing good to say about the current U.S. administration, but I can remember that just because you hate Bush doesn't mean that everyone who hates him too is your ally.  Being on the left _should_ involve some fundamental appreciation of human rights, etc. etc., not just knee-jerk hating on the right.


----------



## übermönch

Only a small group of socially insecure, mostly unemployed, especially eldery people *hating *or *loving *_German _politicians. All those young activists direct their anger at Bush and Israel, neither even being informed about, nor interested in changing the horrendous injustice and medieval perversions in _their own homeland_.


----------



## Hockey13

ElaineG said:


> Agreed.
> 
> One odd thing that happens (probably in every country) is that people think that the enemy of their enemy is their friend. Thus, Hugo Chavez is George Bush's enemy and I hate W, so Hugo Chavez must be OK.
> 
> Among my lefty friends, there is not only widespread worship of Chavez (not shared by the Venezuelan immigrants I know), but I have heard praise of Ahmadinejad and even speculation that Kim Jong Il might not be as bad as he seems.
> 
> These same people, in another generation, would have defended Mao and Stalin.
> 
> This really irks me, because I have nothing good to say about the current U.S. administration, but I can remember that just because you hate Bush doesn't mean that everyone who hates him too is your ally. Being on the left _should_ involve some fundamental appreciation of human rights, etc. etc., not just knee-jerk hating on the right.


 
Odd..I've never met anyone who says "Kim Jong Il probably isn't as bad as people say." How ridiculous, I agree. I don't know much about Chavez, but I consider Ahmadinejad to be out of his mind. What you say at the end makes it sound like you think all of liberal politics in America is solely based on disagreeing with the right. Sounds a touch uninformed to me..

*Edit: I'm sorry if I sounded a little harsh here. I'll keep it up to illustrate my blatant stupidity at times. I realize now that you could have just been talking about your friends. Sorry again.*


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> Something from another thread caught my eye and set me wondering…
> 
> 
> 
> Now, although that was written about someone else, it struck me that more and more it applies, universally, to our political leaders.
> 
> It would appear that the days of "I don't think much of X" or "I suppose Y is okay" seem to be a thing of the past. Is this a result of the increasingly oppositional and confrontational style of political 'debate' and mass-media attempts to boil down politics to a few major issues which divide the players - and ignoring waste swathes of policies where they agree?
> 
> How polarised is the perception, in your country, of the leading politicians of other countries which impact on your country.


It is very polarised here! New Zealanders are (or were) known for apathy, but now that has changed... The degree of feeling about politicians here is astonishing to me. There are those who take what I think of as the "American" line - "all politicians are thieves and liars", and those who hate one particular one, our Prime Minister, who has the same initials as Hilary Clinton, and is, hilariously subject to the same accusations and the same insults... plus a few.

The media here are pretty much on the right wing, (despite the fervent belief of talk back radio hosts that despite _their_ strong influence - right wing to a man, all the rest of the media are liberals and commanists.) The right wing media have been having a smashing good time since Helen Clark has been in power, proclaiming her a tax-and-spend liberal, who wants to be Secretary-General of the UN (although she had said precisely the opposite) and the latest accusation is that although she has been married for 25 years, she is a lesbian. To make that charge stick, the same scurrilous magazine that first made the lesbian accusation has now proclaimed her husband to be a closet homosexual. Given their own expressed views, if that was actually the case, both Miss Clark and her husband would have come out years ago! )

Suffice it to say, that they treat the Opposition leader with a degree of mewling respect that is both bizarre and funny to watch.

VL


----------



## AngelEyes

One thing I've learned about getting to know members on this Board: Governments are not people, even though they're made up of people. And governing leaders may represent their people, but you don't get the full picture unless you shrink your perception down to a one-on-one exchange.

What I mean is, I've learned more about different cultures and countries by getting to know certain members here. From England to Italy to France to Japan, I've learned there are great people all around this world. That, while we're different, we share a lot of similarities. 

That, even if we disagree,when you throw in a lot of respect and listening, you come away with clearer perspectives.

There is not one good reason I can think of not to step forward here and state my tremendous support and pride in my President. If I feel he is a good man, an honest man, I should be able to say it, knowing people from all around the world are learning from me as I am learning from them, whether or not we agree with each other.

If I want to say I listen to, enjoy, and agree with Rush, well, why not do it? 

If I want to say I'm tremendously proud of our soldiers and believe they are doing a great job in Iraq, I think it's important for people who are not Americans to know there are a lot of me's out there who feel the same way. 

One person, with one opinion. More important than any political leader, and a better teacher than any modern Government.

AngelEyes


----------



## cuchuflete

Demonizing and hating any leader, domestic or foreign, is a mighty waste of time.  Some are pretty scary, such as Kim Il Jong, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and George Bush.  Still, it's more useful to understand their egomania and twisted thinking than get oneself in a lather over their policies and incredibly stupid public remarks.  Political opposition is possible in one of the three countries they represent, so that's were the citizens should put their energy.  

How widespread is any stronly held opinion of any foreign leader in my country?  There is relatively little concern with other countries here, unless we have troops serving in them, and most US citizens pay little enough attention to domestic politics, except in election years, let alone the politics and policies of other nations.


----------



## spakh

bush and his administration  I don't like bush just like many people in Turkey.  Also there is a dislike against mesud barzani, celal talabani, etc all those kurdish politicians trying to found a kurdish state in Middle East.  those guys are just puppets under the control of US. and french trying to criminalize the denial of that fuss about so-called genocide


----------



## cucu

spakh said:


> bush and his administration  I don't like bush just like many people in Turkey.  Also there is a dislike against mesud barzani, celal talabani, etc all those kurdish politicians trying to found a kurdish state in Middle East.  those guys are just puppets under the control of US. and french trying to criminalize the denial of that fuss about so-called genocide


 
I just agree with you my friend. To my way of thinking, before interrupting our matters, those trying to seperate our country should be interested in just theirs. If we want to live in peace, these subjects don't help us but harm our releationships.


----------



## cuchuflete

The tendency to discuss domestic politics is alive and well.  It's not the thread topic.  





maxiogee said:


> How polarised is *the perception, in your country, of the leading politicians of other countries *which impact on your country.


----------



## Markus

In Paris it's pretty much a requirement to hate Bush. If you don't, you'd better not voice your opinion or you'll get an earful! I don't like Bush either, but sometimes here I get a bit of a sense that it's "fashionable" or "normal" to dislike Bush more than that it's personally thought-out. Many of the arguments I've heard against him have to do with him being a Texan, uncivilized, and a cowboy. Which is quite funny because this is an image he purposely cultivated to appeal to the American mainstream (he's actually from Connecticut). Anyway this doesn't seem any better to me than hating Chirac because he's French.


----------



## LV4-26

Hockey13 said:


> I think among extremely fundamentalist Republicans in this country, there is a serious, and dangerous, hatred for President Chirac of France. It boggles my mind because the only two reasons that exist for this are that he opposed the US's actions in Iraq and he's French.


I've always found this funny. I wouldn't expect fundamentalist Republicans to appreciate socialist (or was he?) president Mitterrand a lot. Yet, from that perspective, they should prefer him to Chirac : he went to war with George Bush Senior during the 1st Gulf War.
[Now, look how this *"he* went to war" sounds. Mitterrand, as a person, never had to face any guns in that war, nor would Chirac have, if he'd said 'yes' to GWB.]
Pragmatic politics for both.


> Love 'em or hate 'em?


Hatred breeds hatred. Hatred, like violence, is a highly mimetic feeling, whether it comes from outside or from inside.

From outside : Bush, and especially his political environment, showed clear signs of dislike (if not hatred) for Europe ("the old Europe") in general and France in particular.

From inside : Markus rightly used the words "fashionable" and "normal". Plus, it's a common phenomenon in human groups. In French we have an expression that goes "to howl with the wolves", which means something like "to join in the unanimous bashing". To me, it's a kind of (pagan) religious phenomenon.  Although not overtly violent, it's got something to do with collective frenzy. Cuchu used the word "demonized" and I think it's fairly appropriate.

OK, let's be honest : I don't like Mr Bush. But I try to keep it down to "reasonable dislike" instead of "sacred religious hatred". 
Mind you, Mr Bush is only one out of hundreds of other possible targets. It's true that he's one the favorite ones *these days. *But, from what I hear and read here and there, he seems to be a pretty popular target in the US as well, though in a less unanimous way. But some critics look very harsh and very personal.

Is it a recent phenomenon, as maxiogee suggested? I'm not sure. I remember this cartoon by Claire Bretecher back in the 70s. She pictured a teenager looking very depressed in his bedroom and his mother asking him  what was wrong. He answered "It's a disaster : Franco is dead. Now, I've got no one to hate any more".


----------



## maxiogee

LV4-26 said:


> Is it a recent phenomenon, as maxiogee suggested? I'm not sure. I remember this cartoon by Claire Bretecher back in the 70s. She pictured a teenager looking very depressed in his bedroom and his mother asking him  what was wrong. He answered "It's a disaster : Franco is dead. Now, I've got no one to hate any more".



You answered this yourself, LV4-26, when you said "Mind you, Mr Bush is only one out of hundreds of other possible targets." That teenager probably had no-one to replace Franco, but today would have a choice of international figures available to love or hate, and will do so. 
When I was a child we heard of international politicians only when the events in which they acted had a serious impact on Irish life or when they were involved in affairs of great moment. I would have been hard put to name the head of state of many non-European countries other than the USA or the USSR. 
Nowadays we need to actively pursue not knowing these things. 
"News" is rarely reported alone, it always comes swathed in comment.


----------



## djchak

To answer the question...not very.

We (the USA) are too busy polarizing each other into stereotypes of "fundy evangelical neocons" or "raging loony liberals who hate god and country" then what cheese DeVillepin is eating now, or what George Galloway is saying about "thee ahh-merkicans". 

So we are apathetic toward other countries, and polarized towards each other.

So "love em or hate em" has gone beyond the politicians, to members of the "other" party. Long live the boiling pot.


----------



## Hockey13

Maybe to bring in some good examples. My dad, an American who grew up in New Jersey, just like I did, spent three years in southern Germany on business in which time he became fluent in German and met my mother, a German obsessed with telling her teachers that an American accent "is sooooooooo much better than the British one!"  Anyway, I believe I'm an exception in the United States with regards to my extended exposure to two completely different ways of life: that of the average American upper-middle class and that of a relatively rural German. Due to this exposure, and the political discussions I've had with my dad, I've always admired the ability of some central European nations to accept the bad with the good in a democracy full of educated people.

My dad, who also spent some time in Switzerland, told me something very interesting once: "It's fascinating what the Swiss tend to do around election time. There could be a guy advocating anarchy and a reporter will approach him and calmly ask him his position on something. He will respond, usually calmly and coherently as well, and after that the interview will be over. Nobody will have freaked out and proclaimed an end to their way of life. Instead, they all see full inclusion as a standard thing in the democratic process."

This is the sort of thing that I admire in (at least the ideal of) European politics: the ability of most people to express unpopular views and still be considered somewhat of a valid human being. I know it probably doesn't work entirely like that in practice, but there it is anyway.


----------



## LV4-26

Maybe a few additionnal thoughts.
I have a feeling that politics are increasingly becoming personal. I mean, when I was young, the personality of the political leaders seemed to be less important than it is today. What was really important was the forces they were standing for. And, above all, we knew but scarce details about their personalities.


			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Nowadays we need to actively pursue not knowing these things.


I'm not sure what you mean, Tony, but if you mean that we don't have any more *effective* information but still need to express an opinion all the same, then I agree.


			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> the increasingly oppositional and confrontational style of political 'debate'


It seems the 'debate' has always been confrontational and oppostional, as far as I can remember. But again, it was an opposition between different systems, different forces, not yet really between different persons.
I feel as though we now have a whole "gallery of portraits" (not all being heads of states : think of Bin Laden) that help us channelling our feelings. Thus, we can now (intellectually) throw darts on them.


----------



## Kelly B

I think the problem in the US lies, in part, with the two-party system. 
In order to win the support of your party, you usually have to lean far past the center to the extreme wing of that party. The Democrats are represented by "flaming liberal" candidates, and the Republicans are represented by "reactionary conservatives." These, of course, are the people who inspire either adoration, or vitriol.

Moderates are not sufficiently representative of either party's platform to make it onto the ballot, despite the fact that they are more likely to represent the true majority of the electorate with middle-of-the-road views.


----------



## Nellora

politically speaking, both democrats and republicans in the US abhor all who threaten their success. Unless they feel threatened by another politician, everything is just peachy.


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:


> I would have been hard put to name the head of state of many non-European countries other than the USA or the USSR.
> Nowadays we need to actively pursue not knowing these things.





LV4-26 said:


> I'm not sure what you mean, Tony, but if you mean that we don't have any more *effective* information but still need to express an opinion all the same, then I agree.



I mean that to not know the name of the head of state of a remote country takes a certain effort. News is international, the news headlines of an Irish broadcaster will include reports from Iran, Thailand, Liberia, Bolivia and all sorts of other places I wouldn't have heard about when I was a child unless something truly momentous happened. My 20-year-old son probably knows the names of more heads of state of the 160+ countries in the world than he knows the names of the 166 deputies to the Irish parliament.


----------



## Hockey13

Nellora said:


> politically speaking, *both democrats and republicans in the US abhor all who threaten their success.* Unless they feel threatened by another politician, everything is just peachy.


 
I agree whole-heartedly with the bit in bold.


----------



## maxiogee

Nellora said:


> politically speaking, both democrats and republicans in the US abhor all who threaten their success. Unless they feel threatened by another politician, everything is just peachy.



One must realise that from the moment any politician is elected they have one overarching priority - to be re-elected. Or, in the case of someone who can't or won't be standing again, to get a fellow-thinker elected in their place. ALL who threaten their seat are suspect - and none more so than a member of the same party!


----------



## LV4-26

maxiogee said:


> I mean that to not know the name of the head of state of a remote country takes a certain effort.


Got it and agreed. 


> ALL who threaten their seat are suspect - and *none more so than a member of the same party!*


You seem well aware of the ongoing pre-election campaign in France.


----------



## cuchuflete

Moderator Note:

Nobody seems interested in discussing the thread topic:




> How polarised is the perception, in your country, of the leading politicians *of other countries* which impact on your country.


----------

