![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)

Greetings, ma'fellow
Just to put this into perspective, the most scandalous and ill-mouthed political person at the European political scene for the last few years has been some obscure finance minister who until recently was mostly famous for his leather jacket and his motorbike (yes, I'm speaking of Varoufakis). Even he was considered something unacceptable by the political elites at this side of the Pond, while Trump is currently heading the polls in the GOP primaries even after having spewed a shitload of crap. You can already hear a big "WTF" coming from Europe, can't you?
It's evident that us Euros and Americans perceive the qualities of their politicians quite differently. Trump is coming from the ranks of big business and passes for someone who has the "guts" to speak his mind (however stupid it may be) - he's a colorful, unusual, unconventional candidate - while Europeans prefer the more composed, calmer, more refined type of politicians.
As colorful a character as he may be, in Europe Trump is mostly known for his TV show, where he enjoys the privilege of being able to hire and fire people at will. When he made his announcement that he was running for president, people saw him descending upon the unwashed masses on his private elevator in his private skyscraper on the 5th Av. in New York. Yeah, we all saw that. It was yet another proof that he's an arrogant, self-centered asshole who perceives himself as a media darling - so he didn't spare his audience his spicy rhetoric this time, either. He has said he owns a Gucci boutique that costs more than Mitt Romney's entire wealth. But that was only the beginning. His shenanigans on Mexican immigration were by far more scandalous. ("They're rapists ... and I suppose there are some good people among them"). Thing is, the media does love people like him, because scandal sells. Big time. And Trump is a gold mine in that respect.
Granted, the media covers politics in a different way in America compared to Europe. There are two clearly defined camps in the US, so people with leftist or conservative convictions can just choose the info channel that suits their worldview better. A figure like Trump is enjoying so much success because he's a polarizing factor that the media love to either worship or hate. The European media, in contrast, largely share the same values and views, which is why their attitude to the likes of this clown is quite the same: very negative. And their audience, respectively, is shocked, shocked!, I tell you!, at the sight of someone who can afford to speak such grotesque monstrosities, and pass as a serious political figure in the meantime. It just doesn't compute. It grinds on our sensitive Euro ears.
In Europe, being politically inexperienced is much more unacceptable than it is in the US, where in certain circumstances that could even be an asset. Americans do love people who are not part of the establishment, which is why so many of them view Trump as a maverick, especially when comparing him to the likes of Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush.
In other words, the "unpolitical politician" is a phenomenon that's almost unfamiliar in Europe. There *are* some populists like Le Pen and Tsipras, who get a lot of attention as persons, but their political programs tend to be viewed with suspicion. With Trump, things are looking rather differently.
The only politician who tried to behave somewhat similar to Trump's pattern in Europe that comes to mind is one Peer Steinbrueck, a Social-Democrat candidate in Germany who back in 2013 used a sharp tongue during an interview for a big German magazine. He even dared to flip the bird at the camera. That didn't go well with the public at all, who considered it too vulgar and immature. So, Steinbrueck was crushed at the election. We shall see how far this sort of behavior brings Trump in the race to the presidency.
(no subject)
Date: 30/7/15 04:25 (UTC)What could any US president have done to prevent Russia from wanting to become a new empire?
In the simplest terms, increase exports, particularly of energy and heavy electronics/computing to eastern europe and take a hard line (or any line at all FFS) against playing border games. At the very least don't back out of pending deals because some Stalin wannabe asked you nicely.
Who knows of you could prevent it, but we could at least skew the cost benefit ratio away from rather than towards annexing one's neighbors.
What's so bad about Poland teaming up with Germany?
Nothing per se, it's, just further evidence of the GOP's racism and xenophobia. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 30/7/15 05:33 (UTC)Dude, Bush had the "you're either with us or against us" doctrine. And Obama is being accused of going on apology tours. Do try to reconcile these two narratives with your fellow ideologues, and come back to me.
Your last line doesn't make any sense to me.
(no subject)
Date: 30/7/15 09:37 (UTC)... to say the least.
It's hard to say cause we aren't really speaking to each other at the moment
I'm pretty sure that the Saudis and Israelis are alienated likewise ithe Kurds and Chaldeans too if there are any left alive at this point.
Do try to reconcile these two narratives with your fellow ideologues, and come back to me.
How familiar are you with the 1930s and how would you reconcile Chamberlain's securing of "peace in our time" with what followed afterwards?
Uttering an apology doesn't mean it is sincere or effective. Just as giving
GermanyIranSudetenlandnukes + a massive trade package doesn't mean that peace has been secured.Your last line doesn't make any sense to me.
It was suggested during a electoral debate back in 2012 that a resurgent Russia presented a serious threat, and that if the US was to withdraw from NATO commitments that those in Europe specifically Poland and Ukraine should look to their own defense.
This position was condemned as racist xenophobic, and trapped in the cold war by our current secretary of state.
The fact that it came true is just further proof of just how racist and xenophobic we are ;)
(no subject)
Date: 30/7/15 10:10 (UTC)Lots of things are being suggested during electoral debates. Like nuking countries. Doesn't mean that's a serious conversation. Candidates say whatever their electorate wants to hear from them - you do know that, don't you?
The point is this. Bush did terribly on the allies front. He was uncompromising, and for stupid reasons. America looked selfish, hostile, bullyish. Whether Obama's efforts to amend that have been successful or not is irrelevant to the point that's being discussed: namely, the administration's behaviour.
(no subject)
Date: 30/7/15 10:28 (UTC)It is supremely relevant, because if you can reconcile Chamberlain securing peace with WWII you can see how both narratives can be true.
Candidates say whatever their electorate wants to hear from them - you do know that, don't you?\
Yes I know that, I also remember the responses. the fact that specific "unfounded fears" turned out to be very founded indeed should make one intensely leery of other equally "unfounded fears".
Whether Obama's efforts to amend that have been successful or not is irrelevant
Again, it is supremely relevant. There are no prizes for good intentions, only results.
ETA:
Nobel peace prize appears to be the exception that proves the rule.
(no subject)
Date: 30/7/15 10:55 (UTC)I've been trying to steer you back on course with the topic all the time, and you've been trying to deflect in all possible ways. I don't know what conversation you're trying to have, but it's not the one we started. And that's supremely frustrating.
You've been wasting my time. Supremely.
I think we're done here.