In the leadup to the Iraq war, we were repeatedly told that anyone who disagreed with the rush to war, or criticised the Bush Administration, was “anti-American”. It now appears that the majority of Americans are anti-American. A string of polls has shown that most Americans now realise that Bush and his Administration lied to get them into the war and that it was a mistake to go to war. The latest, reported in the NYT is this one from the Pew Research Centre.
It has a lot of interesting statistics on the views of Americans in general, and various elite groups. The truly striking figure is Bush’s approval ranking among leading scientists and engineers, drawn from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. In Aug 2001, it was 30 per cent – not strong but not negligible either. In Oct 2005, it’s fallen to 6 per cent, with 87 per cent disapproving. I’d guess that the scientists in the sample are more hostile than the engineers (though, obviously, the engineers must be pretty hostile). Looking around science-oriented blogs and websites, I’d say that the attitude of Academy members is pretty representative of scientists in general. Anytime you find a favourable remark about Bush you can count on it that the site is an astroturf operation like Flack Central Station or the aptly-named Junk Science.
Scientists and engineers are not generally seen as a highly political group, but they can recognise enemies when they see them, and no government in US history has been more anti-science than this one.
Update: In the comments thread at CT and elsewhere, it’s been denied that anyone ever asserted that opposition to the war was anti-American. This post from Media Matters gives a number of instances, and there are more in the CT comments thread. Others, like Instapundit, preferred objectively pro-Saddam
John Quiggin 
Wait until he gets the mathematicians going. The bible was enough to warrent moves to ban gay marrige, logically the born again christian president will soon move to define pi as 3!
These, sensible, realistic and rational Americans are the true patriots. I ask all who believe that the Bush Clique has made life difficult for the world, imagine how difficult it must be to live next door to them and their crazed loyalists.
The Bush Clique in the wake of 9/11 hijacked large parts of the American Constitution, perpetrated extraordinary rendition upon it and tortured it into something quite unrecognisable. Now the American people are recovering their senses. They are demanding that the Bush Clique show some respect for constitutional processes and some acknowledgment of the plain truth.
The Republican Party, more commited to survival than to any particular set of policies or principles, is about now beginning to brace itself for the struggle to pry the Party away from the death-grip of the Bushites. This is likely to be a very grisly process.
When Bush won the 2004 election I opined that this victory represented the high-water mark of the Radical right this time round. I see no reason to change my opinion on this.
Go America! I’m on your side.
The Independent newspaper has a major article on the Pentagon’s admission that white phosphorus shells were used in Fallujah a year ago.
In a post headed “Worse Than You Can Imagine” dated 17/11/05, Brad DeLong’s weblog (http://delong.typepad.com/) has a post beginning (after a brief intro):
‘A North Carolina man who was charged yesterday with accepting kickbacks and bribes as a comptroller and financial officer for the American occupation authority in Iraq was hired despite having served prison time for felony fraud in the 1990’s. The job gave the man, Robert J. Stein, control over $82 million in cash earmarked for Iraqi rebuilding projects.
‘Along with a web of other conspirators who have not yet been named, Mr. Stein and his wife received “bribes, kickbacks and gratuities amounting to at least $200,000 per month” to steer lucrative construction contracts to companies run by another American, Philip H. Bloom, an affidavit outlining the criminal complaint says. …’
Isn’t it amazing that the Iraq government is suggesting we leave? Having put all the effort in, they want to see our boys back home. What an opportunity to ‘piss-off’,but John and Alex think, this, is still not the time to “cut and run”.
Suspect, we will be the last to leave. Were there any stats about ‘linguist academics’, who i suspect would have picked up the bullshit from the very beginning? ie, when George first opened his mouth.
Why? Apparently it’s inevitable
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GK15Aa01.html
Chris (Lord) Patten, the former Tory Cabinet Minister and governor of Hong Kong, raised the very topic of “anti-Americanism” in an interesting speech he gave to the Australian Institute of International Affairs here in Melbourne last Tuesday.
There is a man who (like myself in this respect, but of course with incomparably more talent and influence) is not only pro-American but has lived, breathed, eaten, slept, and dreamt American culture ever since his early 20s. (Back then, as he himself said, very few British politicians were doing so except Roy Jenkins.) So Lord Patten exhibited in his speech a sense of genuine hurt, as well as astonishment, that the dopier sort of neocon now calls him “anti-American”.
Oddly enough I’ve never met any American in Australia who’s used the epithet. Nor have I been the victim of it myself on any of the numerous occasions I’ve visited the States. No, only Terror Australis’ native-born dingalings have ever hurled it – a few times – at me.
I went to America for the first time in my life this year. I must say I loved it. I was struck by the natural beauty of the place. And I found the vast remote emptyness of big expanses very surprising. Drive from LA into the mountains and the city just disappears into desert. I have been to remote stretches in the Northern Territory and as such I had naively felt that we had a monopoly on remote places. Its just not so.
I fell in love with Zion national park. And Americans at home are as open, hospitable and friendly as you will find people anywhere. And industrious to boot. If I wasn’t happily Australian I would be happily American.
Why do they hate America? Because they’re Democrats:
“As in past America’s Place in the World surveys, the sample of opinion leaders includes more Democrats than Republicans or independents. Perhaps not surprisingly, the biggest decline in Bush’s approval rating since August 2001 has come among scientists and engineers – the most heavily Democratic group.”
“By contrast, influential groups that include relatively high percentages of Republicans, such as military leaders, have a more positive view of Bush’s job performance. The military leaders also are more optimistic about prospects for success in Iraq than are members of other groups.”
I was hoping that someone would come along to restate the view that any American who opposes Bush is a traitor.
A minor correction, though, JF. If you look at the polling data, you’ll find that Independents mostly agree with Democrats as regards Bush’s lies and on their evaluation of his performance. So, you should have written
“Bcause they’re not Republicans”
Other than that, 10 out of 10.
I thought that looked like a fishing expedition, PrQ, but that would be like saying that if you oppose Howard you are a traitor. My problem would be that this would make me a traitor at times and a patriot at others. Too confusing.
J F Beck:
Young-earth creationism, intelligent design, “no global warming” are all part of the Republican platform, for some reason. There is non-zero number of scientists who believe such things, but it’s hardly surprising that the overwhelming majority of US scientists reject such crap and don’t identify themselves as Republicans.
That’s the reality based community for you.
It’s not just the Democrats who are traitors. Even George Will, who is to conservative commentary what Shane Warne is to leg spin bowling, has jumped off Bush.
The self-hating American traitors should be sent to Guantanamo Bay, forthwith.
Well at least our 70 year old PM remains resolutely Pro-American. To prove it he has agreed to let them bomb us!
Well has the Spengler article I linked to got any truth to it?(I don’t know him/her? from a bar of soap but he seems like a good fit with the Asia Times general flavour) Or is anti-Americanism simply tall poppy syndrome? Tasmanians and mainlanders, Kiwis and Aussies and so forth. OTOH, since the fall of the Berlin Wall have leftists just got more sulky over time at picking losers and now increasingly take their frustrations out on a big winner? A mixture perhaps?
Settle kiddies. JQ overstated the whole speaking out against Bush gets one painted as anti-American scenario. My comment was simply a continuation of JQ’s hyperbolic premise.
Certainly there are America-hating elements with the American left but I don’t really see this as a significant problem, which is why I’ve written little to nothing about it.
In an interview in “The Age ” Chris Patten made no effort to conceal his distaste for Cheney,whom he called “conspiratorial” ,and “very easy to dislike” and also “the Honorary Patron on the Washington branch of the Israel-Likud party “..leaving no doubt of his dislike of Bush Mid-east policies in general.
Anecdotal, but the US Mid-Atlantic office I worked in a couple of years ago when all this happened was largely populated by scientists and engineers. The majority were highly critical of Bush, to the point that several lifelong American Republican Party voters, changed their vote. One of my mates, an engineer who is what would be called the Republican base prior to 2002, has called him the worst president ever.
The Bush administration has been hostile to empiricism. Most of the cabinet members and secretaries which have left or been thrown out were empiricists – starting with Whitman and O’Neill. There is only room for ideologues in the Bush Administration. IMHO this goes directly against science and engineering culture.
John, a significant cause of the hostility from engineers is due to that constituency’s feeling of betrayal on offshoring and excessive technical immigration. Your phrase: “they can recognise enemies when they see them,” captures the response.
The US arm of the prestigious IEEE has formal policy positions opposing Bush policy in these areas. It says: “The offshoring of high wage jobs from the United States to overseas locations is currently contributing to unprecedented levels of unemployment among American electrical, electronics and computer engineers. Offshoring also poses a very serious, long term challenge to the nation’s leadership in technology and innovation, its economic prosperity, and its military and homeland security.”
It also supports restrictions on temporary worker immigration and stronger workforce protections.
I tend to find it rather ironic that Bin Laden and 9/11 truely united the U.S.A. through their disgusting actions. Since then Bush has continually found ways to divide the country.
Excuse my naivety but my take is that this is mainly the fruits of the neo-cons hijacking Republican conservatism turning what was often inept short term foreign policy into incompetent and arrogant stupidity. I would assume that Rove isn’t a neo-con just a savvy political player, if so why would he let Bush get so entrenched with these gung-ho ideologues?
“Why do they hate Iran?”
I have never been to Iran. Art and History aside I am pretty sure I would hate it. I find the notion of theocracy really outrageous.
I am inclined to be sympathetic towards the thesis of Robert Baer who thinks Iran has been waging a silent war against the USA since 1979. I think that Bush invaded the wrong country. Iraq as a mostly secular state was not a major sourse of Islamic terrorism. Reagan was probably right to back Iraq in the war with Iran. And we should keep an eye on the Saudi Arabia also.
Robert Baers book “See no Evil” is a compelling read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baer#Articles
observa,
Re Spengler article: It totally misses the point that adults don’t need leaders and stereotyping is no longer fashionable.
“I would assume that Rove isn’t a neo-con just a savvy political player, if so why would he let Bush get so entrenched with these gung-ho ideologues?”
It’s an interesting question, Simon.
A parallel may be seen in the way in which briefly, crucially and disastrously, G. Gordon Liddy was able to convince John Mitchell that Operation Gemstone was a worthwhile project for CREEP to fund. It had no identifiable benefit commensurate with any money or resources expended on it. Yet support for it came to be seen as support for the President’s most heart-felt desires. And on that basis Watergate and all the other lunacy went forward.
Similarly, it seems, Dick Cheney played the G. Gordon Liddy role in a rather more direct way in convincing Bush himself that his own previoiusly unacknowledged deepest desires lay in the direction of an invasion of Iraq. I really do believe that Bush thought that Iraqi oil would pay for it as well.
Woodward’s book on the decision for war indicates just how perfunctory was any discussion in the White House about the issues necessarily consequent upon invasion, such as occupation and nation-building after military victory.
The famous Downing Street Memos also provide a British perspective on their surprise about lack of planning.
Moreover, British ambassor Sir Christopher Meyers in his memoir shows how prominent was Cheney in pre-war discussions with the British.
And finally and crucially to the gathering firestorm in DC over the decision for war, the stream of intelligence justifying invasion was thoroughly contaminated by Cheney’s and Rumsfelds Office of Special Plans redaction of CIA material. both Bush and the Congress were reading the same intelligence — Cheney’s lies.
Well, any American who supports US independence is clearly a traitor ipso facto, and furthermore in favour of terrorism against supporters of the legitimate regime.
“The majority were highly critical of Bush, to the point that several lifelong American Republican Party voters, changed their vote. One of my mates, an engineer who is what would be called the Republican base prior to 2002, has called him the worst president ever.”
At this point, George Bush ahs succeeded in alientating not only liberals and moderates but also a large part of his base.
It’s interesting that his right-wing critics have exactly the opposite complaints to his liberal critics – he has’t been sufficiently vigorous in pursuing the war on terror, hasn’t been radical enough in his domestic agenda and hasn’t appointed enough conservatives to the bench.
The universality of the condemnation and the range of justificatiosn make me think that the rejection of Bush by the Ameircan public is mroe abotu emotional factors than it is about reasoned politics.
“I would assume that Rove isn’t a neo-con just a savvy political player, if so why would he let Bush get so entrenched with these gung-ho ideologues?”
Well it was the widely ridiculed (in advance) “energise your base” strategy that one Bush re-election.
just by the by, but have you ever noticed how many al qaeda-linked terrorists are engineers? it’s bewildering: khalid shaikh mohammed, ramzi yousef, mohammed atta, ziad jarrah, ahmed al-ghamdi, marwan al-shehhi, said bahaji, zacarias moussaoui and mohammed sadeek odeh all had training in at least one field of engineering. a quarter of the 9-11 bombers were engineers. the big cheese himself, osama, graduated from uni in 1979 with a degree in civil engineering.
something to think about, especially given the [usually correct] perception that “Scientists and engineers are not generally seen as a highly political group”.
Another reason engineers and scientists scorn the Bush government can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary, definition A.1.a of the word “ignorant”: Destitute of knowledge, either in general or with respect to a particular fact or subject; unknowing, uninformed, unlearned.
Ignorance is astonishingly widespread in the USA. I could, no doubt, start a flame war of stories about ignorant citizens of the USA, such as a professor of modern history from a mid-Western university, whom I met in 1978, who did not know that Australia had taken part in the Vietnam War. In the Bush government we find not only ignorance of history, science and geography but an adolescent refusal to concede that these include anything non-obvious but worth knowing.
Pity, really, as my experience, like that of Terje, has been that they are generous, friendly and industrious.
There are heaps of reasons to hate America, especially if you take into account what one key critic and opponent suggests, see http://smh.com.au/news/world/bin-laden-without-the-filters/2005/11/17/1132016927094.html
Roberto:
The fact that Bin Laden points out stuff e.g. that the US likes to invade places and kill people doesn’t mean that either:
a) the US doesn’t actually do this stuff, or
b) the US should continue to do this stuff simply because Bin Laden objects to it.
When you invade countries and kill people, a whole lot of people will object. Maybe enough to start another round of terrorist attacks. E.g. the London Undergound. Duh.
Snuh says:- “just by the by, but have you ever noticed how many al qaeda-linked terrorists are engineers? it’s bewildering: khalid shaikh mohammed, ramzi yousef, mohammed atta, ziad jarrah, ahmed al-ghamdi, marwan al-shehhi, said bahaji, zacarias moussaoui and mohammed sadeek odeh all had training in at least one field of engineering”
Yes, I have noticed this Snuh. And I also note how few have done tertiary humanities and social sciences type courses. Maybe a more well-rounded liberal education, as opposed to a rigid specialist edication, would help innoculate those who are susceptible to terrorism.
In the leadup to the Iraq war, we were repeatedly told that anyone who disagreed with the rush to war, or criticised the Bush Administration, was “anti-American�.
Funny , my recollection was that anyone who agreed with the US/Australian/British etc etc , methodical , reasoned and well argued argument for the liberation of Iraq or supported the Bush Administration for it’s determination to do so , was repeatedly pertrayed as a “suckhole” or a supporter of American imperialism etc.
I wonder what our grandchildren will think?
“Funny , my recollection was that anyone who agreed with the US/Australian/British etc etc , methodical , reasoned and well argued argument for the liberation of Iraq…”
Just to clarify Jim. You ARE talking about the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The iraq war support it or disagree with it, the issue has been extremely blurred around one man and his supposive “clique” who have somehow garnered such frothing condemnation in intellectual circles, in which… might i suggest, that it is only because he is not one of them? For that matter, neither am i! I suppose that signifies me as certifiably stupid right?!
To be clear, i am a firm bush supporter, period! But, i do recognize ones God given right to disagree with him or me, period! I do not like the constant character assasinations constantly being played out by both sides against those of opposing views, and only wish we can somehow develope the ability for critical reasoning without feeling the need to politicize every single issue of historical significance, and then categorize them into tiny little details and then think we are so smart by calling them soundbites, if that is possible!?
If Mr. Bush lied to us, then so did the rest of the world ‘s intelligence communities. Or, if Mr. Kerry or any other democrats are so anti-american & unpatriotic, then i suppose the 50+ million who voted for him are too, which would be just as ignorant as the statement that “Bush lied, people died”! Ignorancies can and does work both ways.
It’s been quite some time since i’ve seen such a bunch of non-issues as these, take center stage and then be presented to me as if it really reflects the reality of the current enviroment, in todays much different era of unstability.
400-3. boys. The Democrats don’t even have the courage of their own rhetoric.
So who gives a damn if these impotent poseurs are patriotic or not.
With a 400-3 Senate vote to not pull out of Iraq this GWB “split” is pure hyperbole.
Those that hate the US are just haters.
Do we know the names and motives of the three?
Well, perhaps not all is lost. This interesting story points to the success of Arab-Americans (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2781) and the point is clear that: “if cultural impediments are behind the Arab world’s disappointing performance, what explains Arab Americans’ incredible success? The answer, of course, is opportunities and institutions. Arabs in the United States have access to ample opportunities to prosper and can rely on powerful institutions to protect their civil, political, and economic rights to do so. Indeed, the census data show that Arab ancestry mixed with markets and meritocracy creates a potent fuel for success.”
And further on: “(Arab) leaders should be ashamed when they see their emigrants prospering in the United States while their own people are miserable. ”
All this on the back of: “Whereas 24 percent of Americans hold college degrees, 41 percent of Arab Americans are college graduates. The median income for an Arab family living in the United States is $52,300—4.6 percent higher than other American families—and more than half of all Arab Americans own their home. Forty-two percent of people of Arab descent in the United States work as managers or professionals, while the same is true for only 34 percent of the general U.S. population. For many, this success has come on quickly”
Yep, America is a shocking country to live in. I guess it explains why people are in such a rush to migrate there? How long is the entry cue to get into Iran or Syria etc etc
Markets and trading (local and international) have been part of the Arab culture for a long time. Moreover, it seems to me those who have traded in the markets in North Africa (bazaars), where prices are negotiated, would have an advantage in negotiating individual work contracts over those who were brought up in a type of market economy where haggling was frowned upon.
The trouble with the argument in Roberto’s post is that there may be more than one notion of ‘success’ in the world and it seems to me the ‘big cheeses’ (to borrow a term from snuh) in the world try to convince the ‘little cheeses’ that their notion of ‘success’ is the right one. And, it seems, the little cheeses don’t like the methods used by the ‘big cheeses’.
The Media Matters link hardly proves that anyone was “repeatedly told anyone who disagreed” with the war was anti-American. The link basically shows one person, Ollie North saying that one other person, John Kerry, was anti-American. And North makes it clear that Kerry has taken several anti-American positions, his comment isn’t even limited to the Iraq war issue. Unfortunately, the dems (and I’m an independent, not a dem or repub) are now using the same smoke and mirrors with the “unpatriotic” label that they are trying to hang on various people who haven’t even used the term to describe anyone else.
Terje Peterson, your comment that “Bush invaded the wrong country” is quite interesting. With no UN resolutions demanding that Iran take any specific action, how would you have justified such an attack on Iran? Are 18 UN resolutions against Saddam meaningless?
“With a 400-3 Senate vote to not pull out of Iraq this GWB “splitâ€? is pure hyperbole.”
That IS an impressive result. Especially considering that there are only 100 members of the US senate.
I hadn’t realised that they were using Diebold machines to count the ballots.
“And further on: â€?(Arab) leaders should be ashamed when they see their emigrants prospering in the United States while their own people are miserable. â€? ”
As I have noted before, one reason for allowing migration from repressive countries is exactly to encourage the growth of expatriate communities capable of acting as interlocutors and exemplars between liberal democracies and those countries.
The prominent role played by expats in post-Soviet Eastern Europe illustrates this.
That 400-3 house vote on the question of immediate withdrawal from Iraq is as bogus on any vote the House may take on the following motion:
“That this House relinquishes forever any claim to question in any way the policies and actions of the Executive in the conduct of the war in Iraq.”
I imagine that this motion would also be voted down 400-3 or thereabouts.
If the opponents of the Bush Clique in the House, both Democrat and Republican, had their wits about them, they would have moved an amendment to that ridiculous motion to the effect that the Bush Clique set firm and explicit and testable benchmarks for the commitment of more or fewer troops to Iraq.
The motion as it stood is a sign of fear and desperation on the part of the House supporters of the Bush Clique. Their resolve is paper thin. This is a final gesture of defiance in face of the electoral tidal wave that is about to overwhelm them.
What’s all this sudden fuss about proving that folks really believed Iraq had WMDs? I thought it was all about regime change and injecting the vaccine of democracy into the region.
Regardless of the talking points du jour, I think everyone can agree on two things:
The WMDS weren’t bloody there.
Iraq is an unholy mess (and Aghanisitan ain’t looking too good either.)
If this was the private sector so beloved of the Bush adminstration, heads would have rolled by now over such a titanic fuckup. It’s Enron does Central Asia.
A headline from News.com.au:
“Car bombs kill 48; Bush says war on track”
“Car bombs kill 48; Bush says war on track�
– see the Right Wing does have a better sense of humour.
Actually we find some black humour in the notion that when Saddam and his henchmen killed the same 48 and quietly bulldozed their unpleasant handiwork, then that was preferable because we were all peaceful secularists together. Peace in our time I believe it’s called.
How about the keeslapper when you guys claimed that you were killing 100,000 Iraqis and blowing $500 billion in order to save those 48 lives per day?