Spain revisited

George Bush, rebuffed in his initial attempt to get incoming Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero to understand his proper role as vassal to the US, has gone public,

scolded[ing] the people of Spain for voting Aznar out, saying, "Terrorists want the world to cower."

What happened in Spain, he said, will never happen in the United States. "They'll never shake the will of the United States. We understand the stakes and we will work with our friends to bring justice to the terrorists."

Donald Rumsfeld joined the chorus, singing "If you think that by feeding the alligator you'll be the last thing it eats, you're going to be wrong."

So in effect, Bush called the Spanish cowards and Rumsfeld called them appeasers. Yeah, that'll get them back with us.

Meanwhile, a piece in the Washington Post on Tuesday contained something that all the pundits seem to have found unnecessary: actual informed analysis on why the Spanish electorate voted the way it did.

The part that struck me the most was this:

Usually analysts expect a dramatic disaster such as last week's synchronized attacks on morning rush-hour commuters to solidify support for governing parties with well-defined law-and-order policies. At first, when officials blamed the Basque separatist movement known as ETA for the bombings, the pattern seemed to be holding, with opinion polls suggesting the ruling party might increase its grip on power.

That pretty much blows apart the charge that the Spanish are cutting and running in the face of terrorism. What turned things within the next couple of days was a combination of considerations:

- As I noted on Monday, there was a great deal of anger toward Aznar's government, rooted in the sense that it was manipulating intelligence for its own benefit. The Post notes that this was not the first time that issue had come up; it's been charged that Aznar's government "concealed damaging information about a major oil spill off Spain's Atlantic coast two years ago."

- There was "a lack of confidence in Spain's intelligence and security services, which failed to detect warning signals that the attack was imminent."

- A number of people were, as I suggested yesterday, unwilling to pay a price for a policy they opposed, that of support for the US in Iraq.

"We love America - Faulkner, Hemingway, Coca-Cola and Marilyn Monroe - but we have something against your government," said Luis Gonzales, 56, a high school Spanish literature teacher, as he stopped to view the rows of candles, flowers and makeshift signs at the central Puerta del Sol. "Aznar took us into a war that wasn't our war but only for the benefit of the extreme right and the American companies."

- And, significantly,

[s]everal [analysts] added that it also reflected a sense of alarm and despair that appears to cut across the political spectrum over the way the United States is wielding power in the world.

That opinion is by no means limited to Spain.

Across Europe and in key Muslim countries allied with the US, publics continue to hold negative views of the US, its handling of its leadership position in the world, and the war in Iraq,

according to the latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, as reported by the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday.

The survey was conducted from late February to early March in nine nations: predominantly Muslim Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey; France, Germany, Russia, and the UK in Europe; and the US.

"The divide between the US and Europe is only getting wider," says Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center. "It's beyond a question of America's image, it's now to the point where people want action based on their opposition to the US."

USA Today says the results show

a sharp and growing disconnect between the views of Americans and people who live in other countries. ...

The overwhelming opposition in France and Germany has increased since a survey in May. In Britain, where last year most people backed the war, more are now opposed to the war than support it. ...

Only in the USA do most people think it has helped the war on terrorism. In the other eight nations, by double-digit margins, people say the war in Iraq has hurt the effort against terrorism. ...

Solid majorities in every country but the USA hold an unfavorable opinion of President Bush. In Morocco, Jordan and Pakistan, his unfavorable ratings are higher than Osama bin Laden's.

In fact, CSM says,

Support for Osama bin Laden remains strong in countries ranging from Jordan to Pakistan - where the Al Qaeda leader is viewed favorably by 65 percent of the population. ...

"It's not that people say they support what bin Laden did on Sept. 11[" Doherty said, "]but for people who oppose US policy, he is seen as someone who stands up to America."

An America that is viewed with wide and deep distrust. Majorities in six of the surveyed nations and a plurality in one - Russia - say the war in Iraq is not a sincere effort against terrorism but an effort to control Middle Eastern oil. Only in the US and the UK do majorities disagree. As an illustration of just how bad opinion has gotten in the Muslim world, USA Today says that, according to the survey,

70% of those in Jordan, 66% in Morocco and a 46% plurality in Pakistan say suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justified. Nearly one-third in Turkey agreed.

Disconnect, indeed.

It's appalling how insular we are, how ignorant of the world around us, of how we affect others and how we are viewed by them. Initially, I was going to say astonishing, but that's not the right word. Astonishing means astounding, greatly surprising, and this actually isn't. It is, rather, an expression of the point where our culture and human history intersect.

I'm tempted to go off on a long philosophical rampage about this, as friends know I'm apt to do at times, but the truth is that right now it's nosing toward 4:30 am and I'm really not up for it. I'll just say here that our national psyche is wrapped up in the Marlboro man (albeit without the cigarette these days) - strong, free, independent, self-reliant, do for yourself, go for yourself. Note that it doesn't matter whether we are strong, free, independent, and all the rest, only that we desire to see ourselves that way. As individuals, we admire those who "take no guff from anybody" and "don't suffer fools gladly." As a people, we "chart our own course." (In this light, it's significant that the GOP sneeringly claims that John Kerry wouldn't defend the US unless he "got permission from the UN" - we regard the idea of needing approval from anyone else to be demeaning.)

Add to this our position in the world. Throughout history, on a personal, a cultural, and a national level humans in positions of power have not felt the obligation - or, usually, even the inclination - to attend to the desires or concerns or attitudes of the less powerful, even less the powerless. Power leads to arrogance, to the conviction that things are as they are because they're supposed to be as they are, which leads to indifference. On that personal level, tell the truth: How often are you really aware of the server in the restaurant, the clerk in the store, even when you're interacting with them? When was the last time you really noticed the orderly in the hospital, the kid with the push broom in the grocery store? They are largely invisible to us, and in fact they are supposed to be just that.

Indeed, there can come a point below which they were not important enough to notice at all. When was the last time you watched where you were walking to make sure you didn't step on any ants?

That last is hyperbole, of course, but the point is valid. The US stands astride the world, a giant, and like any other giant feels that once it sets a course, it need have concern only with its own direction and it's up to others to avoid its footfalls. The USA Today story contained a revealing quote from Madeleine Albright:

"What I am worried about is that the psychology of partnership that prevailed for decades between Europe and the United States has been replaced by a psychology of competition."

But what existed for decades was not a partnership, but European submission to US desires and policies, a condition we saw (and, apparently, at least some here still see) as natural and right because of our power.

So give a people who believe they shouldn't care too much what others think the power to not have to care too much what others think, and what do you get? A people who aren't even aware of what others think - and would probably feel genuinely wronged if they ever did become aware of it. It is, as I said, appalling. But it's not astonishing.

Footnote one: I should note for the sake of completeness that a poll of Iraqis just released, about which I hope to have more later, had a more favorable but still decidedly mixed view of the US role in their nation.

Footnote two: One other thing about the events in Spain. As a contributor to BuzzFlash points out, doesn't the attack in Madrid thoroughly demolish the "flypaper" ad hoc, ex post facto justification for invading Iraq?