« Sullivan 1, NYT 0 | Home | Why are the French & Germans being unilateralist? »
February 5, 2003
The Economist on Bush
The Economist on George W. Bush:
“Mr Bush, like Ronald Reagan before him, travels badly. The qualities that make him a highly effective political operator at home—in particular, his directness and the apparent simplicity of language he employs—grate terribly on British ears. For many here, Mr. Bush is the quintessential naïve but overbearing American. Nothing the prime minister says can shake that perception.”
Translation: the British don't like Bush primarily because they are snobs.
Sounds about right.
That is, of course, one way to put it: You could say also that his overbearing qualities, and his lack of curiousity about the world (described by those who admire him as "moral clarity") seem like ignorance, callowness, and self-satisfaction to the British.
I say this of course as a quasi-British person.
Jason
Translation: I am a snob.
He is, to us Brits, somewhat awful. I remember how during the State of the Union address, he said that while some terrorists had been apprehended, others... (and I paraphrases)"let me just say, they aren't going to trouble us any longer." Bush gave his trademark smirk. I stared at the TV and muttered to my companion, "Did the President just say to the World that he liked to assasinate evil-doers?" It is the high-noon moral nullity of the moment that grated.
And at the risk of obsessiveness, I feel constrained to point out: The British loved Clinton, who was a bubba, and if they dislike Bush, it is not because they are snobs: He is the grandson of a senator and a Yalie, the son of a president a Yalie. He is vulgar not through his social class, but through his own efforts.