McGentrix wrote:So, because the media makes Bush out to be a bad guy, he is the most despised leader in the world? I had no idea so many people around the world were such simpletons that they would believe what they read in the newspaper.
Bush is not even close to any of the other people that have been listed in this thread. Someone mentioned Kim Jung Il is not as unpopular because he "minds his own business"... that and the fact that he tortures and kills everyone who disagrees with him as well as their families and pets and the friends pets.
You guys had better watch it, your partisanship is showing.
I think it's incredibly naive or delusional to suggest that everyone around the world who despises Bush does so because he or she has made a careful analysis of the issues and rendered a judgment against the US president based on both intellectual and visceral conclusions. Undoubtedly there are many millions of people who form their opinions about America and its political leadership based on newspaper headlines, TV News soundbytes, and the expressed opinions of film and music stars.
However, the Media can't be blamed for all negative opinion of Bush.
Actually, the person who explained the reason for Kim Jung Il's relative lack of unpopularity is (sad to say) on the mark.
Bush is despised because he is very clearly seen as sticking the American nose in the business of other peoples of the world.
With some exceptions that I will enumerate later, as long as a regime confines its activities within its borders, it can remain comfortably outside the critical regard of the rest of the world.
In accordance with this rule, Saddam Hussein could continue to torture and slaughter hundreds of thousands of his citizens and be less despised than George Bush who ordered the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam.
Apparently, international opinion accepts the starvation of millions of North Koreans as the business of Kim Jung Il, and so long as he minds it and not someone else's business, he gets a few tsk tsks, but no million person protest rallys in London and Madrid.
As previously mentioned, there are some exceptions (and exceptions to exceptions) to the general rule.
1) If a regime is seen to oppress members of a different race or nationality, even if it is contained within its borders, international opinion will be reflected as disdain: e.g. South Africa and Israel.
2) If a regime is seen to oppress members of a minority religion, even if contained within its borders, international opinion will be reflected as disdain: e.g. Serbia and China ( in relation to Tibet). Of course #1 and #2 can overlap here a bit.
Exception to Exception #2: If the religion is Christianity: e.g. Sudan
There is also a caveat to the Rule:
The degree of disdain for any country that sticks its nose in the business of other countries is directly proportional to the level of influence that country exerts on the rest of the world, rather than how far the nose is stuck, for what reasons, and in what manner.
Thus, a US invasion of any country will always engender greater disdain than invasions by lesser countries: e.g. China in Tibet, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, or Iraq in Kuwait.
The degree of disdain is also proportional to the degree of deference the leader displays to Europe. Thus a europhile like Bill Clinton can stick his nose in the business of Serbia, Haiti, and the Sudan and not engender disdain, but the swaggering "cowboy" Bush is despised before he even begins to extend his nose.
In the end, it is a complex mix of dynamics, but a few stand out above the rest:
1) The President of the US has an influence over the lives of individuals around the world that is, at least, perceived to be equal to or greater than the leaders of their own nations. However, only the citizens of the US get to vote him into or out of power. This would annoy the heck out of me if I were a citizen of another country, and particularly if I had little faith in the good judgment of the American people. (Can you imagine the French being relied upon to decide who the most powerful person in the world might be?)
2) Jealousy and resentment. Plain and simple. Even more grating is it to some of the more imperious of prior world powers.
3) The world's expectations for America are quite high and, in some instances, go so far as to hold that the US should raise the interests of the world over its own.
I think there is even a large segment of home grown Bush despisers who come to their bilious state out of a sense of solidarity with the rest of the world (generally read as Europe). These are the would be World Citizens who very definitely subscribe to #3 above.
In the end it does matter whether or not the rest of the world despises George Bush. In part because they don't seem capable of distinguishing between Americans and their political leaders, but also because no matter how powerful we are, it's easier to protect and advance our interests if the rest of the world likes us. However, that it matters does not mean that it is imperative. If, at then end of his eight years in office, GW Bush leaves America with an economy as healthy or healthier than the one we have today, and more secure than it is today, I really won't care very much what international opinion has to say about him.
