I don't recall seeing anyone other than fringe sites publish the Iranian cartoons which in my opinion shows the complete hypocrisy of the west.  A few were quite clever.  Everyone reported the event but nobody published the cartoons.  If they had just ignored it I could understand.

American pride takes root once again. Feeling all mighty and above everyone else, they act as if the right thing to do is what they would do. They forgot how the world sympathized with them and extended help in their darkest hour. I hope not all americans share this feeling of superiority over everyone. Just goes to show how much they know about the world and what it's like living in it, not in some ivory tower.

I, too, was touched and grateful for the European sympathy and understanding following 9-11. I remember the flowers and the realization by all that the world changed on that day. Unfortunately, for all, the shared feelings were steered away by the policies of the leadership of Europe and the policies of anti-Americanism present in media of every country, including the US and Europe. Check CNN news if you want to know how bad the slanting is against the US. Even the European broadcasting is more level.

The US population, except the most gullible, have learned the deceptiveness of the media. I don't believe that Europeans have learned that lesson yet and still do not realize how it allowed to report only what the leftist leaderships politically and on the media staff find approval with. Consequently, the people here still parrot what the media reports and support decisions against their own interests.

I think that Europe has adopted an anti-US mentality that is contrary to what the US has done to support Europe during troubled times and contrary to what America should be remembered for. I think they will wind up regretting that when they have to live under the system designed for them by deceitful leaders. I will hate to see that, just as I would hate to see it in the US.

Thank you for your comments. 9/11 was very important for me personally, partly because it improved my opinion of New Yorkers, mainly because it made me very diffident of the intelligentsia.

Incidentally, when I wrote:  "We do not for a moment think that you would help us out, unless your interests are aligned with ours." I might have added: many of us do not believe that your government would act unethically, if our interests are in conflict.

@ Marcfrans

I'm inclined to agree with you that my pleasure at seeing Bush act like a mirror image of Chirac is not "rational."  But it is real, and the Europeans ought to take notice. Even perfectly rational, educated Americans have grown so tired of the condescension and insults that we no longer care about the fate of Europe, even if Europe's fate affects our own.

On the other hand, there may in fact be a rational basis to my desire to see Europe and America split further apart.  If we remain closely linked strategically and tell ourselves that we share interests, then it is more likely that America will get dragged into the coming civil wars in France and the Netherlands.  No thanks.

@ Frank lee

Using different words, you make the same point as I did on Dalrymple's "oversimplification". So, we agree on the subject at hand.

However, we disagree on your last paragraph. While anti-americanism is rampant in Europe today, anti-europeanism is not yet so in the USA (but rising), and it should be very clear which preceded the other.  Nevertheless, Europeans and Americans share the same long-term interests very much, even though most Europeans do not seem to recognize that today.  Therefore, Snorri Godhi is right when saying that "Bush should have kept out of it" w.r.t. the Danish cartoons affair, or he should have unequivocally defended free speech in Denmark and condemned violence elsewhere.  There is no good rational reason for you to be "pleased" (on any level!) about the way Bush acted in this matter.

You make a very good point about American immunity to the "treason of intellectuals". If I may say so, your point is closely related to what I said about American self-reliance. (However, keep in mind that the British, too, used to be self-reliant and diffident of intellectuals...)

As for European reactions to 9/11, the main immediate reaction seemed to be beating up Muslims and, more usefully, offering support against the Taliban. What you describe sounds more like the American academic reaction, at least as seen from the outside.

As for the cartoons, I don't see why the Bush admin. needed to speak out at all: it might have been better for everybody if they kept out of it.

It seems to me that Dalrymple (whose writing I always enjoy) fails to consider that Americans tend to discount the bleatings of the intelligentsia, so if we Americans suffered a blow like that suffered by the Europeans in the 20th century, it's doubtful that we would wallow in self-loathing, which is a novel idea that must be imposed from above.  We may be fat and tacky as a result of having no proper class system, but at least we are immune to the stupidest and most self-defeating coaching of the intellectuals.  In the broadest terms, Europeans are suspectible to it.

Also, it occurred to me during the Danish cartoon episode that the shameful response from Bush, Clinton, and the American press showed that they had finally started to learn the techniques perfected by the Europeans to deflect blame.  "Kill the Americans, but leave us alone," was the subtext of most European commentary after 9/11.  "Kill the Danes, but leave us alone," was the subtext of Bush's cowardly words.  It's a sign of how bad things have got between Europe and America that I am on some level pleased to see Bush acting this way.

@ Norman Conquest

Yes, it is difficult to stick to the 'High Road' when most of the world wallows in envy on the 'Low Road'.  However, I do not think that this is the same as applying "double standards" on my part.  It would be more accurate to say that, in your understandable frustration, you applied the SAME deplorable standards as 'Eurabian' America-bashers in Holland and elsewhere. 

If it is any consolation, there is little doubt that it is Europeans themselves who in the end will pay, once AGAIN, the biggest price for their "cowardice" and head-in-the-sand attitudes.  But, there is no denying that the whole world is already paying some price for European cowardice.

@ Snorri Ghodi

We have a disagreement on the true origin of "self-reliance".  Self-reliance, moral backbone, work ethic, individual responsibility, etc....are all aspects of the same 'thing'.  They all rest on the fundamental BELIEF that life is meaningful and purposeful (i.e. that it has 'a source....an explanation' which may be 'unfathomable' but which defines its 'nature' and which gives it meaning and purpose).  Without such a belief, assertions of 'reliance, backbone, ethic, responsibility, etc...' become unbelievable.

1) Sorry, but I was not speaking about "moral backbone" (except to say that I do not understand why it's supposed to come from religion). My main interest is self-reliance (work ethic + individual responsibility). It has been a concern of mine since I returned to Europe. If you want to discuss "moral backbone", you are talking to the wrong person.

2) Perhaps I should have said "Dutch oikophobe" not "moral relativist". I used to know a Dutch oikophobe who talked about the Netherlands in roughly the same way as Norman Conquest did before calming down.

The fundamental axiom of oikophobia: given any two distinct countries A and B, an oikophobe from country A and a xenophobe from country B will agree about country A.

@ Snorri Godhi

1) I think we are back to the earlier discussion on "moral relativism".  The "moral backbone" in question is not so much an issue of "church going" as it is an issue of 'belief' that life is meaningful and purposeful.  A God-belief if you want ("for lack of a better term").  From this one can derive a willingnes to 'sacrifice' for something 'bigger' than self-interest, and a willingness to take a certain type of 'risks'.  Whether Americans are more willing to selfLESSly sacrifice (and take real risks) for others - besides the selFISH kind,  of course -, compared with Europeans or others in general, that is essentially an empirical question.   I think the answer to that question is very clearly demonstrated by history, but few will agree on that. In any case, Americans should wisen up and not expect 'gratitude' from ingrates. 

2) We agree that Norman 'Conquest' cannot be Dutch.  But I do not agree with you that he "sounds like a moral relativist" (Dutch or otherwise).

@ Conquest

1) No, I do NOT think that America should take lessons from the Netherlands.  But I do think that issuing gratuitous insults does not strengthen one's arguments.  It never does.  And, linking the quality of one's mind to the size of one's house is - to put it very mildly - stupid.   

2) I agree with you that Amsterdamsky's conclusion has little to do with "objectivity"and more with parroting caricatures.   He certainly did not in any way undermine the point of Bawer and Berlinski about the religious origin of America's relative "moral backbone (for want of a better term) ".   It would also seem that he is way behind in terms of contemporary sociological developments.

3)  I do not think that one can advance the conservative 'cause' by refusing to face facts, nor by making unbalanced judgements.  It is ridiculous for you to accuse me of participating in any "outrageous demonisation of the (Bush) Administration".  Even less so in the context of foreign policy and security policy.  But, it is a simple observable fact that there is great dissatisfaction among American conservatives about the Administration's policies w.r.t. government spending and (illegal) immigration.  Indeed, the Administration's biggest worry about next month's interim elections is precisely that conservatives will stay home, not that the other party's ideas (and personalities) would be popular.  One must hope that conservatives will take a look at the 'alternative', and then remember that politics has to be about what is possible and about the 'least bad option', and NOT about 'dissatisfaction'.  Therefore, they should hold their nose and vote wisely!            

Hi again.
1) Your interpretation of Dalrymple is different from mine. For me, you are extrapolating widly from what Dalrymple actually wrote.

2) Your interpretation of what I say is also a wild extrapolation, but of course I do not write as clearly as Dalrymple. Let me try again:

(a) we can all agree that there is more church-going in America than in Europe.
(b) most people (including me) will agree that there is a stronger work ethic and individual responsibility in America: Americans are more self-reliant.
(c) BUT correlation does not imply causation: there is no evidence that self-reliance depends on church-going. (There is no evidence that church-going depends on self-reliance, either.)

Basically, I am a conservative: I do not trust a government that discourages church-going, and I do not trust a government that encourages church-going, either.

3) I was being sarcastic when writing that Norman Conquest might be Dutch: it amused me to show that he sounds like the Dutch moral relativists that he despises.

Incidentally, when talking to English moral relativists, I adopt a tone of offensive Anglophobia: it is funny to see how defenseless they become.

BTW I never use smileys.

"Both Bawer and Berlinski insist that one great difference between Western Europe and America is the survival of religion in America, which gives Americans a moral backbone (for want of a better term) that Western Europeans do not have."

Lets see American "morality" (I lived there for 30 years I know it well).

1)  Violence good, sex and swearing bad or criminal

2)  Teen pregnancy good, abortion bad

3)  Ten commandments in courtrooms good, ACLU bad

4)  Tossing frozen embryos from fertility clinics good, stem cell research bad and likely to be criminalized soon if the Republicans have their way.

5) Creationism good, Darwin very, very bad.

and the other usual goodies such as "Jesus hates fags" protestors, obscenity fines for Janet Jacksons titty that has stiffled PBS and other networks from showing educational shows and pretty much anything that actually depicts real life on television (a WWII documentary was recently censored heavily to avoid obscenity fines.  Again, blood and violence good, swearing bad). The endless War on Drugs and the erosion of most remaining civil liberties all brought to you from by the Holy Bible.

Hi again: here is an answer point-by-point.

1) Here, Bart Kachelaar has already said what I wanted to say: Dalrymple did not confuse media, government, and people.

2) Do I need to say this? my post does not say (to those who read it) that American morality is worse than Dutch morality. What it says is that American morality is not determined by religion, but by the sturdiness of the national character, to quote Grover Cleveland. NY City is not a very religious city, but their response on 9/11 was none the worse for that.

It is true that the "moral problems" that I listed are concentrated in less religious parts of America, but on the international level there is no correlation between these problems and church-going. If there is a religion that can teach the work ethic and individual responsibility to Europeans, I'd welcome it, actually I'd join it myself.

3) I have no idea what Norman Conquest is talking about, except that he thinks that I am anti-American - or else he is Dutch: a Dutch moral relativist who hates his own country, perhaps.

As for me, all what I said about America in this thread is based on statistics, and anybody can check if I am right or wrong. I know that my post sounds harsh, but then, so did the Pope a month ago. The only thing that I said, which is not supported by statistics, is that Americans are self-reliant.

When I make negative comments about left-wing American academics, that's because I am pro-American (and also because I know many academics personally).

marcfrans wrote:

Surely, Dalrymple over-simplified by confusing traditional American media with 'America' (its people and its 'body politic').

Dalrymple did no such thing. He specifically singled out the American "government and the press," who on this occasion spoke with one voice:

US blasts cartoons of Prophet Mohammed (State Dept, 3 February)

Bush Cautions Press, Urges Peace (President Bush, 8 February)

@ Snorri Godhi

1) Surely, Dalrymple over-simplified by confusing traditional American media with 'America' (its people and its 'body politic').  You are talking about something very different.

2) The social maladies that you refer to are highly 'concentrated' in America (which tolerates much more diversity and 'individuality' than Europe), and have nothing to do with "moral courage" that is rooted in religious belief.  It is even doubtful that they have much to do with "christian morality"(or its opposite).  For example, it is easy to have less 'divorce' if you have much less 'marriage' to begin with, etc....  Each one of your social maladies deserves to be handled on its own, but all this would be totally besides the subject of moral courage and its religious 'source'.

3) While I do think that 'Norman Conquest 304' issues senseless gratuitous insults to the Dutch, I do NOT think that you (Snorri Godhi) are "anti-American".  However, I do believe that you are poorly informed about America.  Could it be otherwise with the main media that we have got?   

Europeans fail to understand how deeply important is religion in the lives of Americans. Go almost anywhere in the US (even in places where the far-left holds court, such as Berkeley, Madison, Cambridge, Austin, and Manhattan), and you will find an astounding number of churches.

And, no, these aren't relics of a more faithful time frequented only by tourists. They are packed to the rafters on Sunday, attended by every social and ethnic group. The ministers, priests, and rabbis (we'll talk not of imams, for now) who lead these congregations are widely respected. As we have seen in election after election, they also hold great sway.

What's more: they are very familiar with the teachings of Islam. Church leaders here are not like the naive and self-hating multiculturalists who control European politics. They are keenly aware of the dangers, and will not easily give up the fight.

Reading Snorri Godhi’s comment, do we conclude that Holland’s pervasive Liberalism with its pervert relativism is superior to the values America stands for? If yes, that sounds rather weird to me.

How can this small country where houses are so small – probably a projection of the Dutch people – that one would think serfdom is still alive and well, dare to teach lessons to a great nation where ALL opinions can be represented without being killed or threatened? Laat me snoren.

Anybody reading this, should please finish reading before deciding that I am anti-American.

I simply cannot understand why religion is supposed to give Americans a moral backbone. Take the Netherlands, supposedly the most secular country in Western Europe: correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the Dutch have a lower rate of divorce, a lower rate of births outside wedlock, a lower rate of drug abuse, a lower rate of drunk driving, a lower rate of obesity, a lower rate of suicide, a lower rate of homicide ... where exactly do you see this Christian morality in America?

On the other hand, if we are speaking about morality, as opposed to Christian morality, then the Americans have a great strength: they do not trust their government to take care of them. Most Americans still believe in self-reliance, and too many Europeans do not. But it would be very difficult to convince me that this has anything to do with religion.

Hallo, marcfrans, it seems to me that it is you who is over-simplifying here. Dalrymple only pointed out that it's not so simple.

Is pusillanimity more prevalent among:

<ol>

<li>the people in general (on either side of the puddle); or</li>

<li>among their political leaders and their hangers-on in the chattering classes?</li>

</ol>

1) I am not sure that “if Americans were to experience a loss of confidence in their country’s power, whether objectively justified or not, the crisis of meaning and purpose might strike them too”. Remember that America was never really infected for good by Marxism, nor any other nihilist, suicidal ideology. America is very different from Europe indeed!

2) “The American response to the Danish cartoon crisis was little short of disgraceful, both in the government and the press”. As every democratic government (note the small “d” for “democratic”), the US Administration does not have free hands. America is a prominent country - the remaining superpower also referred to as the sole hyperpower by Hubert Vedrine, France’s Socialist former Foreign Minister. The United States is also a democracy at war. Now you tell me, do you really believe that it would be good for America to further antagonise the Muslim world by supporting the Danish cartoons in the name of freedom of speech? You see, in this affair, there was no good decision. Granted: the US Administration’s response to the Danish cartoon crisis was inadequate. But was there any other option? If yes, what is it? Now, having said that, I think that the American MSM’s attitude was appalling, especially on the left-hand side of the political spectrum. The New York Times’s response was not only hypocritical and partisan as usual, but also particularly inept and The Washington Post’s was at best silly and at worst disgusting. The message was clear: it’s always easier for those loud mouths to blame the Christian faith for almost everything and nothing than Islam, the religion of “peace, love and tolerance”. Any reason for that? Sure. Cowardice, you’ve named it.

1) The American media's response to the Danish cartoon crisis was indeed disgraceful. But it is a mistake to confuse the major traditional American media with the American 'body politic' and, even worse, with the American people or 'culture'. Those traditional media are still largely 'naive-left' in their elitist world view, but are slowly improving in that regard. And the 'new media' did not show cowardice.

2) The normal democratic pendulum in America will continue to sway between left and right in a cultural sense, and between the 'idealistic strain' and the 'realistic strain' in American foreign policy. But the long-term trend should be clear. The hayday or peak of 'liberalism' (naive-left thinking) in the USA occurred in the 1970's in the Jimmy Carter days. Since then, the culture has moved a long way from such "cowardice". But the pendulum will inevitably continue to swing somewhat, but in a generally different direction.