So, where do Europeans get their views on Americans?  From movies and TV.  The greatest export that America makes is popular culture.  It doesn’t matter where you are in the world, people are watching American films and television and listening to American music.  How much does this affect their opinion of us?  When I was young I spent my 4th through 6th grade years living in Stavanger, Norway.  At the time Dallas was the most popular TV show in the world.  Many Norwegians were under the impression that, in America, everyone lived on ranches, wore cowboy hats, and drank booze out of crystal decanters.  The modern view is that America is a violent place full of gun-toting crazies and racist rednecks, where the Bloods and the Crips patrol the darkened streets looking for victims.  And why do they think this?  Because this is what our popular culture exposes them to: cop shows, gangsta rap, and war movies.  Conversely, America views popular culture as something to be exported, never imported.  The BBC shows American television shows all the time, as do stations in all countries in the world.  When was the last time you saw anything broadcast on one of the major TV networks that originated in another country?  I can’t think of one.  Any foreign TV that we see in this country is on a cable network.  We really are not exposed to any foreign culture in the same manner that American culture is foisted on Europeans, often times at the expense of their own.

The other place the world learns about Americans is from American tourists.  Allow me to state this in no uncertain terms:  there is no such thing in the world more obnoxious than an American tourist.  Having lived in Europe and traveled all around the world, American tourists stick out like a turd in a punch bowl.  They are loud, bossy, and expect everything to be done in the American manner to which they are accustomed.  For example, food portions in Europe are much smaller than they are here.  I have heard, with my own ears, American tourists in a nice restaurant complain that their portion of food was too small and not worth the price.  The fact that this portion of food at this price was perfectly acceptable to everyone else in the restaurant was immaterial, it was that it wasn’t identical to what they were used to and thus felt slighted.  The fact that there might have been 30 other Americans eating in that restaurant who were not bothered by the portion is also immaterial, the image that will stick in everyone’s mind is of the Yank yammering on about how, “Why, back home in America…”

In the 80s I saw a comedian on British TV make a joke about this.  He described a situation where an American was given a British apple to eat.  “You call that an apple?” the American remarked.  “Why, back home in America we have apples that are the size of a softball.” “Well, you see,” came the response, “we only grow them big enough to fit our mouths.”

Consider the stereotype of French people being rude.  As anyone who has been to France can tell you, there is a large element of truth to this.  But are French people really more rude?  When you go to a foreign country, what foreigners do you generally interact with?  Hotel employees, tour guides, waiters, and cab drivers.  Are you really getting a representative sample of French people as a whole?  When I was working in software years ago I had to go to demo at Apple Expo Paris.  A couple of guys from our Paris office decided to take me out for a night of “real” French cuisine.  We went into a restaurant in a building that was about 300 years old.  It was in the basement, and there were only about eight tables in the whole place.  It was a real hole in the wall, something that would never be on any tourist guidebook.  My two French hosts did all the ordering, and when the food came I set about sampling the fare.  Because of how small the room was, and because of how I was dressed, it was obvious that I was American and I was sampling (and loving) French food.  Other diners in the restaurant actually offered to let me try some of their food.  “If your friend likes that, he will find this rabbit stew absolutely delicious.” “Please, try one of these sausages.” I’ve never forgotten that night.  When the French were presented with an American who was not ridiculing their culture or pronouncing the superiority of the American way, who was actually enjoying what France had to offer, they were some of the friendliest people I have ever met.  But the guy who worked behind the desk at the hotel?  Total dickhead.

If you go to New York City to see the sights, are you going to meet any actual New Yorkers?  Of course not, you’re going to meet other tourists.  I was standing in line to go into the Tower of London once and I heard nothing but American accents.  So the tourists deal with the hotel people, and find them to be rude and jaded.  The hotel people deal with the tourists, and find them to be loud and obnoxious and quick to complain.  Do you see how both sides form mistaken impressions of each other?

As I wrote the other day, there is a tendency among Americans to view the American way as being the “right” way simply by virtue of it being American.  Europeans have the same attitude about their culture and views.  And just like both sides believe in their own righteousness, there is a growing tendency to view the opposite opinion as being wrong simply by virtue of it being from the opposition.  In other words, if the Europeans think something is a good idea, this in and of itself, is evidence of its wrongness, irrespective of the merits of the European viewpoint.  Shortly after the London subway bombings I coined a term, Reductio ad Bushium, based upon the logical fallacy known as Reductio ad Hitlerum.

What the British and European people have been deluding themselves with is sort of an inverted “reductio ad Bushium,” in that if Bush believes something then it must be inherently wrong, thus the opposite must be supported.  Therefore when Bush says that terrorism is a global threat and the western world has not done enough to be proactive in fighting it, the “reductio ad Bushium” argument dictates that anyone who supports this belief therefore supports Bush.  Because of the palpable hatred of Bush, societal pressures have forced a lot of people to willfully ignore the threat of radical Islamism, lest they be seen by their peers as somehow being a gullible, willing pawn in Bush’s nefarious quest for global fascist hegemony.  By portraying Bush as alternately a mindless chimp, a puppet whose strings are being pulled by his overlords in the military/industrial complex, or a fascist dictator, it has made it so much easier for so many people to ignore the validity of his underlying message.

Now, while there have always been significant differences between the United States and Europe, we have so much shared history and culture that it is inevitable that we would be generally allied and share common goals.  During the Cold War, Europe was instrumental in deterring the Soviet Union by allowing the United States to garrison troops and install nuclear weapons on their territory.  This brought out massive protests from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), such as this one in London which attracted 250,000 protesters.  However, while there might have been opposition to specific American policies, there was not a general dislike of America.  While Reagan might have been despised for his rhetoric, most Europeans grudgingly acknowledged that he was exactly the type of 800 lb. gorilla that was needed to defeat the USSR.  At the time, the only power on earth able to be that gorilla was the United States.  There was a stasis in American militarism and European pacifism that worked out nicely.

It is also worth exploring where this pacifist sentiment came from.  World War II literally demolished the entire continent.  Millions died.  In the wake of the atrocities of the era, diplomatic organizations were created to try and deal with future problems, so as to avoid having to go through another devastating conflict.  As America beefed up its military, Europe beefed up its social welfare systems and its reliance on diplomacy.  The WWII generation had children, who were no doubt told of the unspeakable horrors that their parents had visited upon them.  From birth they were essentially indoctrinated with the idea that war and conflict were something to be avoided at all costs.

Conversely, America was not destroyed during WWII.  War was something that happened “over there.” No American cities were destroyed.  There were no concentration camps set up in America, the Japanese internment camps notwithstanding.  There was no refugee situation, where people lost everything, and whole families were wiped out.  This is not to in any way diminish America sacrifices to WWII, which were significant, but on a personal and cultural level, America was relatively unscathed on the home front.

The Cold War was fought on two fronts, militarily and diplomatically.  The military part was primarily handled by the Americans.  The diplomatic efforts were through the UN.  This symbiotic relationship was well-suited for the Cold War, where there was a common enemy.  When the USSR fell, however, both sides drew different conclusions.  The Americans admired Reagan’s steely resolve and unflinching weakness.  The Europeans, however, tended to view it as a result of Gorbachev’s policies of perestroika and glasnost.  America views it as a win for resolve, Europe views it as a win for compromise.

Throughout the Cold War, as Europe relied more and more on American military spending for its defense, it became less aware of the need for a military presence.  America had the muscle, and it contributed significantly to the diplomacy, but everyone knew that America didn’t really need the diplomacy.  If there was a WWIII it would be fought primarily between two great armies, the USA and the USSR.  So while America viewed the diplomatic effort as optional, Europeans viewed it as essential, because they didn’t have the military option to fall back on.  When it became obvious that their diplomacy was not going to work to stop the genocide in Kosovo, they had to once again turn to the 800 lb. gorilla to do the heavy lifting.  In America, the general rule is that diplomacy should come first, but that the threat of military force is always there.  In Europe, the rule is that diplomacy is really the only option, because for them it truly is. 

If you are opposed to handgun ownership, it’s very easy to say, “I manage to live my life without a gun, why can’t everyone else?” This is, of course, shortsighted.  In a similar manner, Europe says, “We manage to settle our differences without military force, why can’t the Americans?” In return, America says, “We’ve been dicking around with diplomacy for ages now, can we please just go in and solve this problem?”

Does this situation sound familiar to you?

Now that I’ve illustrated the dynamic at work, let’s look at how this relates to the war on terror and related issues.  Consider that, prior to Bush, we had eight years of Bill Clinton.  Look at it from a European perspective.  The Cold War was won, and Europe wiped its hands and said, perhaps naively, that now we will have an era of peace, the “payoff” for their toleration of American militarism during the Cold War.  We had in the 90s an era of prosperity and technological advancement.  Economies boomed.  During the period, President Clinton was warmly received by our continental cousins.  And why not?  He was an absolutely brilliant man, educated at Oxford.  He was seen as rejecting the militarism of the Reagan and Bush eras, and he payed a great deal of deference to European opinion.  In other words, he was exactly like I was in that French restaurant.  Clinton didn’t belittle Europe, and when he promoted an American view he did so respectfully and diplomatically.  If Europe was a restaurant, Clinton was being fed samples from every country’s table.  They responded to him because he respected them and their traditions.  He was a very European president.

Enter George W. Bush.  As soon as he announced his candidacy, the stories began.  He was a moron, despite somehow managing to graduate from Harvard and Yale.  He was militaristic in a way not seen since the Cold War.  He was a vocal proponent of American exceptionalism, of “the American Way.” He was a religious man, and a largely secular Europe did not respond well to that.  In short, he was the literal opposite of Clinton.  He was a very American president. 

There was the 2000 election fiasco, in which Bush was largely perceived as having stolen the election.  So, not only was he a gung-ho cowboy, he was illegitimate as well, which provided a justification for Europe’s visceral hatred of the man.  It would be sort of like when a neighbor who you really like moves out, and in moves a complete asshole.  He throws parties at all hours, blasts his stereo, doesn’t take care of his yard, and so on.  You can’t do anything to make him leave, but you hate him at the same time.  You’re forced to deal with him, which makes you resentful.  This resent turns to anger and hatred.  That’s how Europe feels about our president, the obnoxious asshole they can’t do anything about.

Now, think about the stereotype that Europeans have of Americans:  loud, obnoxious assholes who are convinced that the American way is right.  And who do we elect as our president?  A loud, obnoxious asshole who is convinced that the American way is right.

Then 9/11 happened.  Despite how people might choose to remember it today, there was a general outpouring of sympathy from Europe.  They’ve been suffering from war and terrorism and destruction for years.  It’s a part of their collective psyche.  From their point of view, the last haven of real safety on the planet—America—had just been violated.  Now we would experience what they have.  Of course, when you consider what they have lost over the years due to war and terrorism, 3,000 people is a relatively low number.  From their point of view, we had just gotten a taste of the European experience.

From our viewpoint, however, this was brand new.  There is no tradition of war being meted out on our shores.  We didn’t lose any cities during WWII.  Terrorists haven’t been detonating bombs in our subway systems since the 1960s.  We never had to deal with the IRA or Black September or the Red Brigades or any of the other terrorist groups which Europe has been fighting for decades.  This experience was totally foreign to our collective psyche.  We were outraged at this offense against our homeland, and we responded exactly the way the 800 lb. gorilla acts when you poke him with a stick.

While there was, of course, a howl of opposition from the pacifist anti-American wing of the European population, there was virtual uniformity among all nations that the United States was going to strike back, and that this would be perfectly justified.  When we went in to Afghanistan, the nations of the civilized world gladly joined in.  NATO gave us its full backing.  For all the differences between the United States and Europe, there was still a bedrock of similarities and shared values and customs.

Then Bush talked about Iraq.  From the European standpoint, they said, “Huh?  You were attacked by terrorists who trained in Afghanistan.  You lost 3,000 people which, while tragic, isn’t the end of the world in the grand scheme of things.  You’ll rebuild and go on just like we have done.  So how can you possibly use 9/11 as justification for invading a country which had nothing to do with it?” What did we do in response?  We told them to shove it up their ass.  We said that their diplomatic traditions were stupid and weak, that their pacifist tendencies were not appropriate for the post-9/11 world, that they just “didn’t understand” terrorism, and that we didn’t give a shit what they thought—we were going to do whatever the hell we wanted, because we were America.

The 800 lb. gorilla had somehow gotten out of its cage.  And here a vitally important point comes into play.  They already had a negative stereotype about Americans, and now were not only forced to deal with a president who not only was the living embodiment of this stereotype, but who was acting exactly the way the stereotype said he should.  Whereas Clinton was sitting in the restaurant sampling delicious French food, Bush charged in wearing boots and a cowboy hat, yelled that their food sucked, and told them that if they knew what was good for them they’d all start eating McDonalds.  George W. Bush is the literal embodiment of the stereotype of the ugly American.  Therefore, by extrapolation, the actions of George W. Bush became completely intertwined with the image of America.  If you hate Bush, then you hate America.

Now comes the torture issue.  In light of all that I have written above, allow me to requote the text from the beginning of this paragraph.

This is why this torture issue has me so bothered.  It’s not that I have sympathy for terrorists or any of that other nonsense.  It’s that for 58 years America and the rest of the civilized world have spoken clearly with one voice as far as what is acceptable.  Whether or not you happen to agree with the specifics of this agreement is immaterial.  The important aspect is that the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture, the UN Declaraton on Human Rights, and other similar treaties and agreements establish a common baseline, a standard agreement among civilized people, on how everyone should act.  This is leading by example.

These treaties and organizations and agreements are the literal bedrock upon which the EuroAmerican alliance is built.  They state that, no matter what our disagreements may be on politics, we have created a set of standards to codify these shared values.  They are, in the minds of Europeans, inviolable.  Why?  Because, in the European psyche, in their collective consciousness, they still remember the atrocities of WWII.  Even today there are reminders everywhere.  The death camps, the rusting wrecks from the D-Day invasion off the coast of Luc-sur-mer, the craters in the countryside; all these provide a very real, very tangible link to a horrific past.  The Geneva Conventions were created by the very generation who lived through these atrocities as a direct result of the atrocities themselves.  As the Europeans rebuilt their shattered continent, they enacted these rules so that it would never happen to them again.

Now, George W. Bush has come along and, using parliamentary tricks and legal loopholes, is weakening the very bedrock upon which European peace and security is based.

Americans view European diplomacy as weakness which will virtually guarantee more bloodshed.  Europeans view American militarism and total lack of respect for their political and diplomatic institutions as something that could one day unleash a new wave of atrocities and violence upon them.  This has turned out to be true.  There were the bombings in London and Spain, the bombs planted on the trains in Germany, the recent London airline plot, and so on.  Every one of these happened in Europe.  Number of American domestic terrorist attacks:  zero.  So, in a very real way, we’re fighting the war and they’re paying the price.  It was a war they wanted no part of to begin with, but have been sucked in anyway.  George W. Bush’s America has made modern Europe less secure.

The point of this long post was to detail European attitudes towards these issues, because unless you had the benefit (as I did) of growing up all around the world and being immersed in these cultures and attitudes you would have absolutely no reason to really know what foreigners think.  From our standpoint we’re just nudging these rules a teensy weensy bit to enable us to smack around a few terrorists.  From their standpoint, we’re making it more likely that WWIII will be unleashed.

Why should we care what they think of us?  Allow me to give you an illustration from the Cold War.  During the 1980s our president was a conservative icon, Ronald Reagan.  France’s president was Francois Mitterand, a Socialist.  You couldn’t have two men whose views were more diametrically opposed to each other, but they had one thing in common—they both understood the need to defeat the Soviet Union, and they both knew that the way Reagan and Thatcher were going about it was the right one.  Even though there was a significant amount of anti-American sentiment in Europe at the time because of the nuclear weapons issue, most European leaders were willing to stand up to their people and say, “This is something we need to do.  We have to stand tough, together, and win this war.” Whether the people were emotionally with the United States, intellectually they knew that it was in their best interests to do so.  And they did.

What has Bush done?  He led the coalition of the willing into war in Iraq to rid the world of Saddam’s WMD.  European political support for this gambit was lukewarm at best; European popular support for the man waging it was even lower.  Whereas European leaders had an often-grudging respect for Reagan and his policies and thus placed their trust in the United States, they have absolutely no faith in our president or our country.  He, and by extension we, are despised.  European leaders were willing to defy their people to support the United States, but they are not willing to do so to support George W. Bush.  No matter how righteous his cause may be, the principle of Reductio ad Bushium comes into play—if Bush thinks it’s a good idea, then it must be bad.  Look at what happened to Tony Blair as a result of his decision to support us.  The same goes for Spain.  That’s the warning to every other European leader—support us and die politically.

When I say that there are bigger issues at stake than just torture, this is what I mean.  Our “slight tweak” to these conventions is, to Europe, the most grave attack on their way of life since Adolf Hitler destroyed their continent.  We have to look at it from their point of view.  What we have to ask ourselves is whether, in totality, the right to smack around prisoners is worth the cost in terms of our international prestige.

These laws are sacrosanct to Europeans because they are the only means of caging an 800 lb. gorilla.  When the gorilla gets free to do as the gorilla wishes, there is no telling what mayhem will result.  In the European psyche, the memories of the last bout of mayhem are all too real and all to personal.  We have to respect that.  In the America vs. Islam world, we have two 800 lb. gorillas who might go at full war with each other.  And guess which part of the world will feel the brunt of that battle:  Europe.

The point I want to close on is this:  I believe that the people most likely (like me) to oppose changing these conventions are the people who have the most experience in an international context.  Note that this does NOT imply any kind of moral or intellectual superiority on my part, it is simply stating a fact.  When you have virtually no experience with Europeans, or if your only experience was the jerk working the front desk at your hotel, then you are less likely to view Europe as someone who should be viewed as an equal.  This does not mean that we need to kowtow to Europe’s demands.  Reagan sure as hell didn’t.  However, we could take a number of pages from Bill Clinton’s attitude towards diplomacy, because the way Bush does things has made the whole world hate us.