Sigh.

First of all, I think it was bad form for your introducer to say such a thing in front of a crowd, even if it's true. Very tacky.

And do you hate Bush more than Chavez or Ahmadinejad or bin Laden, who want us all dead? What does it mean that you--or your host--singled him out for hate?

And why would you go to a foreign country and disparage your president, beer or no beer? There was no need. Hating Bush is NOT a "bare-bones qualification for an American who wants to address a foreign audience these days." Especially not for the sophisticated crowds you're probably speaking to.

This was a very interesting post on several levels. Just for the moment, let's agree to put aside the specific of this comment relating to Mr. Bush.

Is it bad form to note something about a person you are introducing as a speaker which could be perceived as "contentious"? Perhaps, although I would suggest that the introducee is the only person truly entitled to make that call.

We all advocate for truth, the real, unpleasant, full-on truth in what we do in our communications work. We lampoon and discuss and slam people who say things they don't believe or that they know aren't true, because its "politically correct." We push our executives to tell the truth even when we know that will potentially cause some discomfort or negative reactions. Why then, would we advocate a different approach in this other public communication situation?

One answer I've heard on this score is "we're talking about the President of the United States, and simply by virtue that title he deserves to be treated and spoken of respectfully." All I can respond to that argument is what my Mom taught me: "You have to EARN respect, you don't get it free because you have a title, or lots of money, or any other 'thing'Respect is a precious commodity in today's world, so I think we should choose carefully those we offer it to."

Since David's post makes it relatively clear he does NOT respect George Bush, wouldn't it be hypocritical and very disingenuous to pretend he does just because he's somewhere outside the US?

Finally, I think Jane asked an important question which is worthy of a lively discussion:

"And do you hate Bush more than Chavez or Ahmadinejad or bin Laden, who want us all dead? What does it mean that you--or your host--singled him out for hate?"

I think the fact that someone in a country not particularly known as a hotbed of political commentary and aggressive behaviour (my perception - I could have missed stuff) feels so strongly about the decisions and choices made by a politician half a world away, that he felt it reasonable and appropriate to make that reference is a pretty telling thing.

I also think that perhaps, just now and then, instead of moving straight to offended (though of course folks are entitled to feel that way) we might want to step back and actually try to answer that question - "Why DID they single him out for hate?" and "Are there any legitimate concerns these opinions are highlighting that we MIGHT want to reconsider?"

P.S. David - I would NEVER have said I told you so about the beer!

What I meant to write was, "And do you hate Bush more than [you hate] Chavez or Ahmadinejad or bin Laden?" Sorry for being unclear. I just wanted to get a sense of your perspective.

First of all, David, I don't think you really hate the president. Do you even know him? Having said that, I firmly support your right to proclaim hatred for your president even if, like the Dixie Chicks, you choose to say so on foreign soil. All of that is well and good.

But I think Jane sort of summed it up. I believe we all have an unwritten responsibility of citizenship to say, "Listen, I absolutely disagree with just about everything that guy stands for, but by God, he's still *my* president. Until I and others who think like me change the seat of power with our constitutional voting rights, we're stuck with him."

I have spoken those very words overseas in my lifetime about the following people:

- Bill Clinton
- Richard Nixon
- Jimmy Carter

Every one of them, and others, were *our* presidents regardless of whether we liked them. And I've even changed my mind about one of them. In retrospect, if we can put the Monica/lying thing aside, Bill Clinton wasn't that bad of a leader. Someday you might say similar words about George Bush. Maybe not, but in the meantime I think it's in very poor taste to get into a hate-the-American-president discussion overseas. That's a topic that should be reserved for us Americans to discuss among ourselves.

Will

Will's post reminds me of that family thing - I can rant and rave about my sibling (or parents) but let an outsider say something negative or disrepectful about my sibling and them's fightin' words.

I agree with Jane that throwing in the Bush reference was uncalled for in David's introduction. Unless it's somehow relevant to the presenter's topic, leave politics out.

Anyway, hate is such a strong word. Even his political enemies admit that Georgie Boy seems like an affable sort, likely good company over a couple of those Danish beers (if he was still into that sort of thing). I firmly believe the world would be a better place if he'd stuck to being a lousy baseball team owner instead of going into politics ... but I don't know him well enough to hate him.

Thanks, Colleen. I'm waiting for the flame, which is what I got when I posted similar comments in a journalism faculty forum once. A Canadian was engaging American faculty members in a universally agreed upon hate-Bush discussion. Oh, there was the occasional dissenter, but by and large it was hate Bush. I took offense at the Canadian fueling the hate, and I said so. I might have thought differently if it were international politics they were discussing, but that particular discussion was about some domestic U.S. policy. It just seems like such a no-brainer that since Canadians can't vote here, they shouldn't stick their noses into our domestic politics. It was pretty funny, actually, to watch the fireworks.

Will

Somewhere in the realm of Kristen's "real, unpleasant, full-on truth" I'd like an insistence on good manners, which NEVER preclude truth. Truth does not mean "saying everything that's in your head." When one is with foreign strangers in a foreign land, there are topics that are usually avoided, at least at first. The old "religion and politics" comes to mind. I think some manners were lacking in Copenhagen on both ends of the conversation. And I think it's possible that after David leaves Copenhagen they'll be having a good laugh about the American who fell into their hands.

We'll get into whether George Bush is logical hate material, in the greater scheme of things, some other time. For now, I just don't like it when Americans go abroad and bad-mouth my country's government. It's more embarrassing to me than the government sins that occasioned it. Sorry, David. I still love ya, but....

I don't find anything inappropriate about having a candid conversation with one's host and friends about pretty much anything. They may even, in the evening of male bonding, have told stories about their marriages, or been candid about how things really are at work. In the context of an evening of camaraderie, I don't see where it's inappropriate to open up and just talk freely.

From my perspective, the inappropriate behavior was on the part of David's host. He sounds like he's a bright enough guy, and so he knew that he was taking something revealed to him in candid friendship and using it publicly to embarrass David. How very tabloid.

Wouldn't you feel betrayed if a friend, even a new friend, did something like that to you? Say, at a retirement roast or something, started telling stories about something personal (who cares what, male erectile dysfunction, or a fear of tabby cats--whatever!), things revealed in an intimate setting in good humor and loosened up with a little good alcohol, and then used that in a setting where others, people who didn't know these personal things, were suddenly informed and would from then on see you in a whole new way?

David wasn't using his visit to Denmark as a vehicle for his political views. He had thrust upon him in a public setting opinions he had revealed in an intimate one. A lesson, I suppose, in withholding trust in new situations, but perhaps also telling of the open nature of this man whose thoughts we all like to read and ponder.

I think the bad form was on the part of David's host, who has either poor judgment or something of a mean streak.

Back to the Thanksgiving preparations.
...Joan

Okay, all--

Just back from Denmark; my ears burned all the way home, as I guessed this post might stir up some feelings—and on the way home finished Hunter Thompson's Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, a book that made me feel free to express myself intensely.

A few important points worth mentioning even in a jet-lag fog:

• Jane, if I hate Bush—and after seven years of watching this foolishness, I hate him about as much as one can hate a politician who hasn't personally or directly harmed me or my family—I probably hate him more frequently and in more detail than those other folks, if only because he is MY COUNTRY'S LEADER.

• No, I flatly disagree with the notion that I shouldn't talk about politics when I'm in Denmark. When I'm in other countries—China, Australia, Ireland, Denmark—I'm DESPERATE to talk about politics, because I'm eager to get other perspectives than the dirty bathwater we drink (and serve each other all too often in conversations like this one, which I started, I realize).

• Will, your perspective is: ""Listen, I absolutely disagree with just about everything that guy stands for, but by God, he's still *my* president. Until I and others who think like me change the seat of power with our constitutional voting rights, we're stuck with him." No arguments here. But I happen to believe Bush is a more destructive president than any of the ones you mentioned, including Nixon, who I just read 500 pages of good Thompson bile about. (Will, like you, I have defended general U.S. policy against Europeans and Canadians—right up until about 2002.)

And most importantly, I want to make sure everyone understands that while it may have been bad form for my host to mention that I "hate Bush," which were words I never actually said during our political conversation, which was long and had to do with a hell of a lot more than George Bush—he didn't mean to embarrass me, and I must say in the context of Danish and European culture in general, it wasn't really a controversial thing to say. It really was his way of saying, "He's a good guy."

You can dislike the Danes for feeling that way, and you can dislike my giving aid and comfort to their point of view, but I dislike George Bush and this gang of maniacs for being so completely crazy that they're putting us ALL in these frustrated political conversations we wouldn't have had a decade ago.

NOW: To the grocery store.

David

David, our "frustrated political conversations" would be a hell of a lot more frustrated if our enemies ever established the upper hand. Bush is a hardliner on American safety against terrorism (with the big exception of his stand on immigration control, which I cannot comprehend). He knows a terrorist when he sees one, and he takes action.

Have some of his actions been mistaken? Maybe. The Brits and Israelis have the best intelligence machines in the world, and they said there were WMDs in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein was saying right out loud that he had 'em; Bush took a stand based on all that and maybe it was a mistake. Bill Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Khartoum to distract the world from Monica Lewinsky in the witness stand. Do you "hate" Bill Clinton the way you "hate" George Bush?

Has Bush been less than honest at times? Yes. I'm ashamed at how he threw Alberto Gonzales to the wolves even though what Gonzales did was within the law and Clinton fired 93 attorneys to Bush's what? Eight? The media controlled this one, and Bush let them. Was Bill Clinton ever less than honest? Don't get me started.

In this era of terrorism, where whole continents of people can be wiped out with a little something in the water or the air, I like knowing that a man who will stand up to terrorism is in the Oval Office. He's flawed, but he's one of the best things that ever happened to the democracies in the world. Their leaders know it. There's real, deadly evil out there. We can sit here at home (or go abroad, as you did) and yack about details and disappointments until the cows come home, but somebody has to be doing the dirty work against the bad guys. That's Bush. At least give him that.

David,

Great discussion. Thanks for opening that door, and welcome home!

Joan, you didn't accuse me of having erectile dysfunction, did you?

Will

Interesting that you picked that instead of a terror of tabby cats! Hmmm....

Joan (where our wonderful snow has gone all melty with Chinook winds blowing us into something resembling spring; and us with two brand new used snow machines waiting for their maiden voyage! Sigh...)

Joan, you are a very clever communicator. You have learned how to use "you" and "erectile dysfunction" in the same sentence obviously aimed at a man, and then coyly sidestep the whole thing when it's brought to your attention. I am sure there is a place for you in politics.

Will