Does it matter if other countries despise us?

[Arkady]

US approval ratings abroad can vary greatly, even among our closest allies. For example, before GW Bush took the presidency, America's approval rating in Germany was 78%. It was 83% in Britain, 76% in France, and 50% in Spain. Opinion dropped dramatically during his presidency, thanks to a war waged based on a pack of lies, and a bunch of serious scandals including two separate torture scandals:

The problem was "mostly Bush" according to the majority of respondents:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/05/goodwill-deficit

Since Obama took office, things improved quite a bit. In Britain we've gone from 53% to 65%, in Germany from 31% to 50%, in France from 42% to 73%, and in Spain from 33% to 65%.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/

But the question is, does any of that matter? I think it matters a great deal, in several ways:

(1) Getting things done abroad at a reasonable price to the American taxpayer is a lot easier if foreign governments can justify their assistance to their own people more easily. For example, Desert Storm/Desert Shield was accomplished at almost no cost to the American taxpayer because other countries (including Germany and Japan) picked up a lot of the tab for us. By comparison, GW Bush's Iraq conquest debacle will end up having cost us trillions of dollars, in large part because what little international assistance we could get was essentially window dressing, purchased at high cost to American taxpayers, in order to create the illusion of a "coalition of the willing." To get countries to add their names to the list of supporting countries for Bush's pet war, we handed out favorable trade deals, loan guaranties, big boosts in foreign aid, lucrative American military bases, etc. It was jokingly called the "coalition of the billing." The price tag for international support for US priorities goes up if foreign countries have populations hostile to America.

(2) Terrorists need to be able to recruit new members on a regular basis, because it's a profession with a notoriously short life expectancy. For terrorist recruiters who'd like to target America, that means it's beneficial to have access to populations that are pissed at America. Even if widespread hatred of America doesn't directly contribute the handful of nut-jobs they're looking for, it can contribute to a culture where it's easier for recruiters to operate just beneath the surface -- a culture where violently anti-American rhetoric can be broadcast, throwing the recruiting net wide, without standing out the way it would in a country that was mostly pro-American.

(3) The ability of American products to compete abroad has some relation to national branding. You're probably accustomed to seeing this from the other direction:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/02/19/americans-just-say-non-to-french-products.html

It cuts both ways. If you're a Spaniard, deciding whether you want to drive a Ford or a Volkswagen, and consciously or subconsciously you think of the Ford as the "Gitmobile," because of the stench of America's torture practices, that makes it harder for the Ford to compete. We saw the impact of that during the dark days of Bush, when a plummeting dollar should have made US exports far more competitive on foreign markets, improving our trade balance, and yet the trade balance remained just as ugly as it had been when the dollar was strong. With American products stigmatized by terrible American behavior, that wasn't surprising. Even made cheaper by a weak dollar, US products had to be a lot better than their foreign counterparts to attract consumers disgusted by the American brand.

This is a relevant consideration as we move towards the November election. If we elect Trump, we can expect a slide back towards Bush-league approval ratings abroad.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/03/08/donald-trump-world-leaders-republican-gop/81312520/

We can expect our allies to be more reluctant to chip in, and more expensive to buy, since they'll have to reckon with populations that despise us, which might punish politicians seen as too accommodating towards US interests. We can expect other cultures to become increasingly hospitable to anti-American terrorist recruiting. And we can expect US companies to struggle to sell products abroad, even if the dollar were to weaken. Yes, it does matter what the rest of the world thinks of us, and we might be on the verge of making that a whole lot worse.

 

[Jen]

The opinion of other countries should never influence who we vote for.

 

[connieb]

US approval ratings abroad can vary greatly, even among our closest allies. For example, before GW Bush took the presidency, America's approval rating in Germany was 78%. It was 83% in Britain, 76% in France, and 50% in Spain. Opinion dropped dramatically during his presidency, thanks to a war waged based on a pack of lies, and a bunch of serious scandals including two separate torture scandals:

The problem was "mostly Bush" according to the majority of respondents:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/05/goodwill-deficit

Since Obama took office, things improved quite a bit. In Britain we've gone from 53% to 65%, in Germany from 31% to 50%, in France from 42% to 73%, and in Spain from 33% to 65%.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/

But the question is, does any of that matter? I think it matters a great deal, in several ways:

(1) Getting things done abroad at a reasonable price to the American taxpayer is a lot easier if foreign governments can justify their assistance to their own people more easily. For example, Desert Storm/Desert Shield was accomplished at almost no cost to the American taxpayer because other countries (including Germany and Japan) picked up a lot of the tab for us. By comparison, GW Bush's Iraq conquest debacle will end up having cost us trillions of dollars, in large part because what little international assistance we could get was essentially window dressing, purchased at high cost to American taxpayers, in order to create the illusion of a "coalition of the willing." To get countries to add their names to the list of supporting countries for Bush's pet war, we handed out favorable trade deals, loan guaranties, big boosts in foreign aid, lucrative American military bases, etc. It was jokingly called the "coalition of the billing." The price tag for international support for US priorities goes up if foreign countries have populations hostile to America.

(2) Terrorists need to be able to recruit new members on a regular basis, because it's a profession with a notoriously short life expectancy. For terrorist recruiters who'd like to target America, that means it's beneficial to have access to populations that are pissed at America. Even if widespread hatred of America doesn't directly contribute the handful of nut-jobs they're looking for, it can contribute to a culture where it's easier for recruiters to operate just beneath the surface -- a culture where violently anti-American rhetoric can be broadcast, throwing the recruiting net wide, without standing out the way it would in a country that was mostly pro-American.

(3) The ability of American products to compete abroad has some relation to national branding. You're probably accustomed to seeing this from the other direction:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/02/19/americans-just-say-non-to-french-products.html

It cuts both ways. If you're a Spaniard, deciding whether you want to drive a Ford or a Volkswagen, and consciously or subconsciously you think of the Ford as the "Gitmobile," because of the stench of America's torture practices, that makes it harder for the Ford to compete. We saw the impact of that during the dark days of Bush, when a plummeting dollar should have made US exports far more competitive on foreign markets, improving our trade balance, and yet the trade balance remained just as ugly as it had been when the dollar was strong. With American products stigmatized by terrible American behavior, that wasn't surprising. Even made cheaper by a weak dollar, US products had to be a lot better than their foreign counterparts to attract consumers disgusted by the American brand.

This is a relevant consideration as we move towards the November election. If we elect Trump, we can expect a slide back towards Bush-league approval ratings abroad.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/03/08/donald-trump-world-leaders-republican-gop/81312520/

We can expect our allies to be more reluctant to chip in, and more expensive to buy, since they'll have to reckon with populations that despise us, which might punish politicians seen as too accommodating towards US interests. We can expect other cultures to become increasingly hospitable to anti-American terrorist recruiting. And we can expect US companies to struggle to sell products abroad, even if the dollar were to weaken. Yes, it does matter what the rest of the world thinks of us, and we might be on the verge of making that a whole lot worse.

Does it matter - no.

Our leaders need to do what i sole in our best interest. And, that may mean it is in someone else's direct bad interest. Oh well. That is why you fight wars and develop a dominate military.

connie

 

[Arkady]

Does it matter - no.

What makes you think that? Do you deny that our ability to accomplish things abroad at a reasonable cost depends in part on how popular America is abroad? Do you deny that the ground for anti-American terrorist recruiting can be made more or less fertile by how people around the world feel about America? Do you deny that American products can have positive or negative associations among foreign consumers based on being American, depending on how America is seen, and that this can help or hurt exports?

I come at this from a business perspective. I'm well aware that big businesses care a great deal about how they're seen outside of the business. It's not just about whether a particular product is well-regarded in the marketplace. It's about how the company as a whole is seen. That's why companies will spend big bucks to name a stadium or to fund a humanitarian effort or just to do generic corporate-brand-building that isn't associated with a particular good or service. They know that if they're regarded badly as a corporation, their product will be tougher to sell, even if it's better than competitors. They know that if the public dislikes them, politicians will see it as more dangerous to give them advantageous policy treatment. And they know that if there's a stigma associated with the company, it'll be tougher to recruit and retain good employees, than if it's a place the public would be proud to be associated with.

Applying a business perspective to government doesn't always work well, but in this case I think it's appropriate. Similar factors will apply in both settings. In each case, being regarded negatively is going to hurt. That doesn't mean we need always to do whatever makes us more popular. Spending down international goodwill may be worth doing if the priority justifies it. But it does mean we'd be fools to tank our approval ratings the way we did in the Bush years for not good reason. And that's just what I think Trump will do. Right now, we're like a fast food joint deciding whether to make Jared Fogle our CEO and telling ourselves it doesn't matter if that pisses off the public.

 

[Arkady]

The opinion of other countries should never influence who we vote for.

Why not?

 

[connieb]

What makes you think that? Do you deny that our ability to accomplish things abroad at a reasonable cost depends in part on how popular America is abroad? Do you deny that the ground for anti-American terrorist recruiting can be made more or less fertile by how people around the world feel about America? Do you deny that American products can have positive or negative associations among foreign consumers based on being American, depending on how America is seen, and that this can help or hurt exports?

I come at this from a business perspective. I'm well aware that big businesses care a great deal about how they're seen outside of the business. It's not just about whether a particular product is well-regarded in the marketplace. It's about how the company as a whole is seen. That's why companies will spend big bucks to name a stadium or to fund a humanitarian effort or just to do generic corporate-brand-building that isn't associated with a particular good or service. They know that if they're regarded badly as a corporation, their product will be tougher to sell, even if it's better than competitors. They know that if the public dislikes them, politicians will see it as more dangerous to give them advantageous policy treatment. And they know that if there's a stigma associated with the company, it'll be tougher to recruit and retain good employees, than if it's a place the public would be proud to be associated with.

Applying a business perspective to government doesn't always work well, but in this case I think it's appropriate. Similar factors will apply in both settings. In each case, being regarded negatively is going to hurt. That doesn't mean we need always to do whatever makes us more popular. Spending down international goodwill may be worth doing if the priority justifies it. But it does mean we'd be fools to tank our approval ratings the way we did in the Bush years for not good reason. And that's just what I think Trump will do. Right now, we're like a fast food joint deciding whether to make Jared Fogle our CEO and telling ourselves it doesn't matter if that pisses off the public.

Accomplish what things abroad? I am only interested in accomplishing what is particularly in our interest - and using force if necessary to get that done.

Our products - our companies already largely operate as other entities in different countries -thus they don't come off as "american" otherwise consumers will want the best product and demand and get the best product even creating a black market for them.

There was trade - among private parties long before Gov't ever got involved. I don't think a positive or negative public perception will influence that one way or the other.

The only way we have a more favorable opinion in the world is to subjugate what is best for us - for what is best for someone else. Yeah.. I have not interest in doing that. WE do the best thing for us all the time. We reward our friends by being kind to them., and punish our enemies. THAT is why you seek to be powerful. They can either play by our rules or face our wrath.

As far as anti- american terrorism, etc. If WE were better at protecting ourselves and less concerned with being nice and accommodating to others - there would be much less opportunity anyway.

connie

 

[marvin martian]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/03/08/donald-trump-world-leaders-republican-gop/81312520/

Another solid, nicely done propaganda post for your candidate Hillary Clinton! Is that three or four today? Good job!

 

[as seen on tv]

thank goodness Europe can't vote, eh? they're the moronic bozos who gave Obama the nobel peace prize 30 days after he was inaugurated.

first nobel peace prize winner with a "kill list".

there is nothing LESS important to me than the election viewpoints of nations which are

- struggling with higher unemployment
- have lower living standards
- exhibit anti Semitism and other forms of intolerance
- expect us to pay most of the NATO tab
- use various ruses to try and block American products from competing with their own farms and factories.

 

[Arkady]

Accomplish what things abroad?

Containing regional conflicts, ending terrorism, dealing with pollution problems, addressing human rights abuses around the world (child labor, sex trafficking), addressing the drug trade, responding effectively to disease epidemics, enforcing intellectual property law, preventing refugee crises, policing the seas against over-fishing and piracy, defending against military aggression, preventing trade wars, administering orbits, preventing international crime and cyber-crime in particular, protecting the interests of US citizens traveling abroad, etc. All those things can be done better and more cost effectively with enthusiastic international cooperation, and specifically coordination with our allies.

thus they don't come off as "american"

Incorrect. Many American products are specifically understood as American products abroad, and can be helped or hurt by public perceptions of America abroad. Spaniards recognize that Fords are Americna, regardless of where they might be assembled, just as you recognize that Toyota is Japanese, BMW German, Peugeot French, Ferrari is Italian, and so on. As you can see with the link I provided from back in the silly old days of 2003, when Fox News was crowing about Americans closing their wallets to French products (to take revenge for the French not being convinced that Iraq had massive stockpiles of WMDs), public perception of a nation can help or hurt the nation's products, even short of any formal boycott attempt.

http://www.rense.com/general36/boycottofamerican.htm

Back in the Bush years, I predicted that the invasion of Iraq would sour international opinion of the US (back when right-wingers were convinced we'd be greeted as liberators and before long the world would be thanking us). I also predicted that this would hurt US trade -- that even if the dollar sank, exports wouldn't rise as much as the models said they should, as US products became a lot cheaper abroad, because of that stigma American products bore. My predictions ended up being right. Now, maybe I stumbled into that and the real causes had nothing to do with the mechanisms I predicted. But it sure seems to have played out the way I said it would.

The only way we have a more favorable opinion in the world is to subjugate what is best for us - for what is best for someone else.

No, of course not. Picture two neighbors. On one side of your house, the neighbor has a well-manicured lawn and a well-maintained house. On the other side, the neighbor's grass is always gone to seed, his paint is peeling, he's got some junker up on cinder blocks in his yard, and there's litter strewn everywhere. The neighbor who takes care of his property also does his part in neighborhood activities -- taking part in the PTA and neighborhood watch, participating helpfully in town meetings, etc. The other neighbor can't be bothered and his contribution to town meetings to to show up drunk and yell at people. Which neighbor will you have a favorable opinion of? That's not because the good neighbor subjugates what's best for him.

As far as anti- american terrorism, etc. If WE were better at protecting ourselves and less concerned with being nice and accommodating to others - there would be much less opportunity anyway.

What makes you think that? Take Russia as a check on that theory. Russians haven't been at all concerned with being nice and accommodating others. Yet their terrible behavior has resulted in a steady stream of terrorist attacks on Russian targets. In 2013 alone, there were 661 terrorist offenses in Russia, including 31 full-fledged terrorist attacks, claiming 40 lives and injuring dozens more. Even with brutal police tactics and a contempt for civil liberties, terrorists still succeed in causing great damage.

https://www.rt.com/politics/russian-terrorism-investigator-committee-993/

 

[Jen]

Why not?

Why?

It's not like they've shown us they are particularly enlightened.
It's none of their business who we need or choose.

 

[Arkady]

thank goodness Europe can't vote, eh? they're the moronic bozos who gave Obama the nobel peace prize 30 days after he was inaugurated.

first nobel peace prize winner with a "kill list".

there is nothing LESS important to me than the election viewpoints of nations which are

- struggling with higher unemployment
- have lower living standards
- exhibit anti Semitism and other forms of intolerance
- expect us to pay most of the NATO tab
- use various ruses to try and block American products from competing with their own farms and factories.

Then you ought to think more carefully about the points I made. Caring what other countries think doesn't mean believing their judgment is particularly good, which seems to be the un-made point that you're trying to dispute here. It's about realizing that there are consequences to being disliked abroad.

Think of it this way: I can believe my coworkers are imbeciles and yet still realize that my career could be hurt if I were generally disliked by them. It isn't about thinking their judgment is fantastic. It's about realizing that to succeed at work, I need to be able to get along with them.

 

[Arkady]

Why?

I explained why. Did you not understand the explanation? Would you like it explained in other terms?

It's not like they've shown us they are particularly enlightened.
It's none of their business who we need or choose.

Neither of those points are relevant. Whether they're enlightened or not, and whatever you think about whether it's their business who we choose, there are consequences when we're disliked. That doesn't mean we necessarily have to do what would be needed to be liked. But we should be rational about it -- we should weigh the consequences into our decision. Voting for Trump will hurt us by making us less popular abroad, by the mechanisms I explained. Maybe you think voting for him will help us in other ways enough to outweigh that. But the only way to think about that clearly is to factor everything in, rather than just saying some factors shouldn't influence us, for no reason than that you feel emotionally uncomfortable with letting them influence us.

 

[oicu812]

interesting choice of words...

"countries despise"...

does the USA despise mexico?

how about iran/iraq?

china?
n.korea?
russia?

to use "despise" in such a way undermines the original intent...

 

[connieb]

Containing regional conflicts, ending terrorism, dealing with pollution problems, addressing human rights abuses around the world (child labor, sex trafficking), addressing the drug trade, responding effectively to disease epidemics, enforcing intellectual property law, preventing refugee crises, policing the seas against over-fishing and piracy, defending against military aggression, preventing trade wars, administering orbits, preventing international crime and cyber-crime in particular, protecting the interests of US citizens traveling abroad, etc. All those things can be done better and more cost effectively with enthusiastic international cooperation, and specifically coordination with our allies.



Incorrect. Many American products are specifically understood as American products abroad, and can be helped or hurt by public perceptions of America abroad. Spaniards recognize that Fords are Americna, regardless of where they might be assembled, just as you recognize that Toyota is Japanese, BMW German, Peugeot French, Ferrari is Italian, and so on. As you can see with the link I provided from back in the silly old days of 2003, when Fox News was crowing about Americans closing their wallets to French products (to take revenge for the French not being convinced that Iraq had massive stockpiles of WMDs), public perception of a nation can help or hurt the nation's products, even short of any formal boycott attempt.

http://www.rense.com/general36/boycottofamerican.htm

Back in the Bush years, I predicted that the invasion of Iraq would sour international opinion of the US (back when right-wingers were convinced we'd be greeted as liberators and before long the world would be thanking us). I also predicted that this would hurt US trade -- that even if the dollar sank, exports wouldn't rise as much as the models said they should, as US products became a lot cheaper abroad, because of that stigma American products bore. My predictions ended up being right. Now, maybe I stumbled into that and the real causes had nothing to do with the mechanisms I predicted. But it sure seems to have played out the way I said it would.



No, of course not. Picture two neighbors. On one side of your house, the neighbor has a well-manicured lawn and a well-maintained house. On the other side, the neighbor's grass is always gone to seed, his paint is peeling, he's got some junker up on cinder blocks in his yard, and there's litter strewn everywhere. The neighbor who takes care of his property also does his part in neighborhood activities -- taking part in the PTA and neighborhood watch, participating helpfully in town meetings, etc. The other neighbor can't be bothered and his contribution to town meetings to to show up drunk and yell at people. Which neighbor will you have a favorable opinion of? That's not because the good neighbor subjugates what's best for him.



What makes you think that? Take Russia as a check on that theory. Russians haven't been at all concerned with being nice and accommodating others. Yet their terrible behavior has resulted in a steady stream of terrorist attacks on Russian targets. In 2013 alone, there were 661 terrorist offenses in Russia, including 31 full-fledged terrorist attacks, claiming 40 lives and injuring dozens more. Even with brutal police tactics and a contempt for civil liberties, terrorists still succeed in causing great damage.

https://www.rt.com/politics/russian-terrorism-investigator-committee-993/

Ah.. so basically it impedes your globalist collective policies.

That sounds like the best reason EVER to elect someone the rest of the world hates.



connie

 

[Arkady]

Ah.. so basically it impedes your globalist collective policies.

No. But if you try reading more carefully you might understand on a second pass. It needn't be about globalist collective policies. It's simply about the fact that we share a planet and lots of issues don't pay much attention to imaginary lines drawn on a map. A disease outbreak in one area or refugees from another or political pollutants from a third can all cross our boundaries. Or, to take an area I have professional familiarity with: what about intellectual property? If other countries come to despise us, they may have little incentive to enforce copyrights on US films, music, and software, trademarks for US products, patents on US drugs, nor to enforce laws against cyber criminals who steal trade secrets or even identities in the US. We aren't an economy that exports a lot of fungible products like basic textiles or raw commodities. Much of the value of our exports lies in intellectual property. If we lose our ability to count on international cooperation in upholding intellectual property, we have nothing to offer the rest of the world that would uphold our high standard of living.

 

[Arkady]

interesting choice of words...

"countries despise"...

does the USA despise mexico?

how about iran/iraq?

china?
n.korea?
russia?

to use "despise" in such a way undermines the original intent...

Yes, I think that i. the sense I'm using the term the US does despise those countries.

 

[connieb]

No. But if you try reading more carefully you might understand on a second pass. It needn't be about globalist collective policies. It's simply about the fact that we share a planet and lots of issues don't pay much attention to imaginary lines drawn on a map. A disease outbreak in one area or refugees from another or political pollutants from a third can all cross our boundaries. Or, to take an area I have professional familiarity with: what about intellectual property? If other countries come to despise us, they may have little incentive to enforce copyrights on US films, music, and software, trademarks for US products, patents on US drugs, nor to enforce laws against cyber criminals who steal trade secrets or even identities in the US. We aren't an economy that exports a lot of fungible products like basic textiles or raw commodities. Much of the value of our exports lies in intellectual property. If we lose our ability to count on international cooperation in upholding intellectual property, we have nothing to offer the rest of the world that would uphold our high standard of living.

I read it. I understand it. And, I am calling you for the collectivist you are.

We have a military to enforce our policies overseas if necessary. Other people would also like to trade with us for their own economic reasons. Two countries can despise each other - but want to trade. That would be nothing new. They may not want to enforce our copyrights, but they may well want to sell us their cheap made shit, too.

 

[oicu812]

Yes, I think that i. the sense I'm using the term the US does despise those countries.

then its as i pointed out...

you are using it wrong...

 

[Arkady]

I read it. I understand it.

Excellent. Then you spot your error and realize that whether or not I'm a collectivist (whatever that is) doesn't matter for purposes of this argument: that any nation that doesn't have the planet to itself is going to be hurt by things that make the cooperation of other nations more difficult to get.

We have a military to enforce our policies overseas if necessary.

Yes. And the military is both hyper expensive and a very blunt tool that often does us more harm than good (as during Bush's insane Iraq war). There are more effective and affordable ways to get things done, the vast majority of the time, but the availability of that tool box depends a lot on our relations with other nations. A carpenter would have to be a great fool to throw away all his tools except the hammer and reason that if he needs to accomplish any work he can always bludgeon it.

. Two countries can despise each other - but want to trade.

And history has shown how mutual distrust can descend into trade wars and mutual impoverishment.

 

[Arkady]

then its as i pointed out...

you are using it wrong...

Clearly not. Possibly you'd benefit from a dictionary.