US political debate as seen from outside

“Whereas the debate on the war in the UK took place in part within the left and around the relative importance of the human rights issue, in the US the perception on the left seems to be that anything that the current administration advocates or gets up to should be opposed.”

I think that this has to do with how the debates on going to war were framed in each country. In the UK, Blair was up front about how, in his opinion, removing a horrible dictator such as Saddam Hussein was in itself reason enough to go to war. The debate, then, was largely on the left and focused in a large part on whether removing human rights abusing totalitarian dictators is or is not sufficient reason to invade a country.

In the US, though, this was merely one of a large number of constantly shifting justifications for war and was mostly dragged out after the fact to justify what was then a done deal. Opponents of the ware in the US, then, were more likely to concentrate on the dishonesty and venality of the administration and be justifiably horrified by the process that took us to war.

As an American currently living in the UK, I found Blair’s position much more worthy of respect and I would have been much more supportive of the war if it had been him leading the way rather than Bush forcing things down our throat. Despite lefty Britons complaining about Blair, he is more trustworthy by light-years than Bush and I am far less likely to reflexively dismiss things that Blair says.

I find that in the US blogosphere, as opposed to the Australian blogosphere, there is alot more partisanship. To paraphrase Tacitus[1]: ‘Defining your politics via opposition’.

[1] The blog one, not the Roman one.

Yes, I agree with the previous commenters. I actually very tepidly supported the war on the grounds that Hussein needed to be ousted and that the US still had UN authority to do so. But over here, regardless of the rhetoric from the right these days, the war was not justified by the admin on this basis. It was justified by scare-mongering regarding WMDs and terrorism. Of course the more hardened left would always oppose any Republican war and most Democrat wars; the moderate left, of which I’m an example, would probably have been persuaded had BushCo not been so obviously lying to us. And because of this, and for other reasons, we thought it would likely go badly. In a sense, I suppose I was also tepidly antiwar—but since it was obviously going to happen come hell or high water, my attitude became “oh well, if we must”.

As unhappy as the British left is with Blair, I can’t believe that it even remotely compares to how they felt about Thatcher. Major, maybe. But if you contrast Thatcher to Blair and GWB to Clinton, I think it becomes obvious that “there’s no difference” is a lie and that “anyone but” is a reasonable position.

Finally, because of the nature of American politics, American political views are more defined by what/who is opposed than what is favored. I tend to think that the winner-take-all, two-party system forces a generalized consensus on American politics—that’s why our left and right are so close to each other. I think that’s good, although I recognize that many people disagree. But the downside of this is that when people mostly agree, their differences loom much larger. This is why internecine battles are so vicious.

“I have to confess that though I increasingly agree with my friends that the war was a bad thing, I was surprised by their certainty…”

This is my basic situation as well Chris. And I think it ties in nicely with what Jay said; one’s perception of events cannot help but be shaped by how those events were or were not projected, presented, or assessed beforehand. I can’t reflect the sentiments of the British left, obviously, but from my own peculiar corner of the American left, Blair has always appeared more serious, more honest, and less exploitive (of public opinion and of institutional realities) than Bush. (In my view, Blair truly saw the war in Iraq has fitting into an appropriate internationalist/humanitarian framework.) I disagree with a great many of Bush’s policies, obviously, but it is his seemingly careless, ignorant, condescending treatment of other persons, countries, opinions, procedures and laws that have forced me to most seriously question my liberal hawkish views.

Another difference in in the UK a lot of people realise that although Blair could have not sent troops, it’s not as if he could have stopped the invasion, or indeed as any real power at all in its implementation.

Thus if you opposed the war even if you’re British your main complaints on the war itself have to be with Bush. Obviously when it comes to domestic policy, and the domestic handling of the war, it’s a different matter, but these things make people less angry.

Chris,

This could be somewhat related to some other obsevations you’ve made in recent posts about American discourse and culture or attitudes, and also with what seems to me the weakness of internationalism on what is called the American left, no?

Which last point is in turn related to the unique failure of socialism – one of whose defining tenets is internationalist solidarity – in the US, such that the political divide seems to be between left-liberals and right-liberals.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head, but I do think there might be something there.

Americans understand the political right/left continuum differently from Brits: in the US the key issues are war and peace, abortion and the environment. Economic issues are peripheral and, in any case, on these matters the American moderate left is to the right of the right elsewhere.

Since Vietnam, Peace has been the American left’s signature issue so you can always rally the troops by getting together a Peace Demonstration. You can also get people out in support of abortion rights and environmental issues. But, in spite of unemployment and all our economic woes, no one is taking to the streets to demand more jobs much less the sort of social programs that are normal elsewhere in affluent countries.

It isn’t that Americans are more partisan: it is what they are partisan about. And when left and right candidates get serious about pushing their core constituencies’ buttons the mantras they chant are invariably Peace vs. Tax Cuts.

Actually, Chris, I think the Afghanistan case is the exception that proves the rule. There was a huge upsurge in support for Bush after S11, mirrored by international feelings of solidarity with America. Even tactical criticisms, most notably concerning the lack of sufficient troops on the ground, were muted. The assumption was that this crisis necessitated national and international unity and that Bush would act accordingly.

On the international front, the first big crack in this, as I recall was the way offers of troops to keep the peace in Afghanistan were dismissed (except for a few in Kabul). Domestically, the process was slower, but the process was pretty much complete by the 2002 mid-term elections.

In the UK, Blair was up front about how, in his opinion, removing a horrible dictator such as Saddam Hussein was in itself reason enough to go to war.

Well, perhaps, but the argument he made to the Commons was all WMD, all of the time. Dodgy dossiers an’ all.

Based on that comment, nick, I have to wonder how much of the differences werebased on news coverage, then. In the US, I don’t rememebr hearing very much form Blair about WMDS, except when he would support a statement Bush made. His own words were largely reported as “This is a hummanitarian war”

I’m interested in the conflict between motive and outcome. Let’s create a quick thought experiment. There are two police officers. Both big, physical guys. One is a well-adjusted sociopath who wants to beat people up, and became a cop because that’s the only legal way to do it. He carefully stays within the bounds of the law, however. The second is a true paladin of the people, who went into law enforcement to make the world a better place.

The two are on patrol and confront a pair of robbers armed with knives. Confident of their physical skills, the two officers leave their guns holstered, and break the right arms of each of the robbers and arrests them.

The first officer broke the arm of the robber because he could. The second did so because it was the tactically efficent solution.

How should we as citizens feel about these two officers? By this I mean, what concrete different in treatment should the officers receive because of their differing motivations.

Rajeev – if it’s “parochial ideology” to not want the ICC to repeat its mishandling of the SLobodan Milosevic case, I’m happy to be a parochial ideologue.

H.E.–I read recently (I forget where) that Bush carried the top three income divisions voted for Bush in 2000 and Gore carried the bottom three. So I don’t accept one of your premises. Also, my contention is that people vote on the economic policies they’d like to see happen, not necessarily on their self-interest.
As for unions, it doesn’t matter how widespread they are. If economics were irrelevant to the left-right divide, there’d be no reason for the unions to be Democratic; it’s not as though they’re particularly socially liberal or pacifist. So the fact that they are Democratic is evidence that economic policy preferences influence political support.

I am not sure whether Chris realizes it, but he has just made a fairly devastating criticism of American academics — at least those he encountered. Take a look at the reasoning he ascribes to them if you are puzzled by this. Since I quite agree with his criticism, I will leave that point for more discussion at my site in a day or two.

As for income levels and voting, here’s what the NYT exit polls showed in 2000, with Bush’s share of the vote in parentheses: Under $15,000 (37), $15,000-$29,999 (41), $30,000-$49,999 (48), Over $50,000 (52), Over $75,000 (53), and Over $100,000 (54). The last three categories overlap, as you may have noticed. A full 53 percent of the voters were in the Over $50,000 category.

Religion was a much stronger predictor of the vote, although the NYT did not ask an appropriate question about it in 2000. So too was marital status. If the vote had been limited to the married, Bush would have swept into office by a margin of 53-44, with Nader getting 2 percent. Single people gave Gore a much bigger share of the vote, obviously, with most of the difference coming from single women.

Past elections have usually had stronger relationships of income to the vote.