* Bush appoints 3 Supremes. Two of them are consistently pro-Life, one a Sandy Day. As for other federal judgeships, thanks to an improved Senate balance he has even greater success putting believers in judicial restraint on the bench. When necessary he plays hardball with recess appointments.
* Dems finally accept long-term minority status in Congress, setting off a wave of Dem retirements.
* Dems sink further into denial, and actually convince themselves that they lost because they weren’t liberal enough. Lib blogs buzz with people saying, ‘if only we had nominated Dean.’
* Anti-Bush hysteria goes into overdrive. Bush hating becomes a cottage industry supporting an entire class of political hacks. Oh wait, that’s already happened.
* The open Kerry cheerleading of Big Media is a preview of coming attractions. Media outlets increasingly abandon the pretense of objectivity, and the line between analysis and hard news becomes more and more difficult to discern. This fuels a trend toward alternative media. Bully for us.
* The cultural and political divide between the US and Europe continues to widen. England becomes increasingly Euro-integrated, and nearly as emptily moralizing, effete and bureaucratized as the rest of them. The Euros continue to tut-tut whenever Americans take decisive steps to protect themselves or fight for the democratic causes about which Euros only posture. We continue not to care.
What do you mean, the Euros? I keep hearing that there's all kinds of Europeans who support our decisive steps - Blair, Berlusconi, Kwasniewski, Aznar, that Polish cabby who drove me around town the other day.
Or have you finally realized that none of their voters do, and none of the European countries that really count?
Posted by: The Liberal Media at novembre 2, 2004 09:00 PMLiberal Media --
Nice use of exaggeration. You've been spending your time at Reuters profitably, I can tell. ;-)
It is hardly "none of their voters." But I think it is reasonable to speak of "the Euros", because the countries who control the European bureaucracy, media and agenda by and large are hostile friends at best. And I think those countries which actually do have resolve and an understanding of the world that transcends insipid anti-Americanism will lose that over time, and fall more and more in line with France and Germany.
The fact is, we have a radically different set of cultural values than Europe. They may look like us (for another few decades), but they are in many ways as foreign as any other continent. They (the Germany-France wing) see themselves as having contrary interests to our own, and act accordingly. I'm glad to see America recognizing this fact and moving on with life.
The Atlantic divide will widen primarily not out of ill-will on either side, though there is plenty, but as a natural result of conflicting understandings of the world.
Further, I think the phrase "none of the European countries that count" is laughable. Italy, Poland, Spain, and England have a combined population of 197 million. Germany, France and Belgium muster 152 million. So unless your only criterion is influence within the EU bureaucracy, I'm unsure of your grounds for dismissing these Coalition countries as inconequential. On an economic or international level, they certainly hold their own against France and Germany's creaking economies. And some might be inclined to see the UK's permanent UN Security Council seat as "mattering."
Anyway, I've responded with a tone I think approximates your own. Hope we both shrug it off. :)
Posted by: Discoshaman at novembre 2, 2004 10:25 PMSorry for the tone, you're right.
But I'm genuinely confused by your response. You seem to be arguing both that there are two wings, and yet that they really are all alike.
My argument is that if you look at populations, not governments (with 70-80 percent opposition to the Iraq war in Spain and Italy), Europe is indeed pretty unified. And yes, influence on the EU bureaucracy is indeed a big criterion; economic power is another.
But Europe is unified not only in the massive outpouring of support for the U.S. after September 11, and its support for the war in Afghanistan (remember who's leading the ISAF), but also in its opposition to the war in Iraq.
Serious question: are you arguing that the grassroots sympathy after September 11 and the support for Afghanistan were just a knee-jerk reaction based on historical sentiments that don't really exist anymore? I guess you could make that argument, but to me it seems more plausible that the sentiment was - and remains - genuine, while there's a serious disagreement over Iraq.
Posted by: The Liberal Media at novembre 5, 2004 10:02 AM