My brother was recently in Paris on business. He wore a tee-shirt that said, in both French and English: "Proud to be an American. Proud to hate Bush." He was greeted warmly everywhere he went, people even offering to buy him drinks and dinner. So this "anti-Americanism" stuff is a bunch of hooey. The French and the Germans were just trying to save us from ourselves in Iraq. Everything that's happened since the invasion has completely vindicated their position. They were right, and you were wrong. And I'm proud to be an American who saw that.

The French re Iraq - save us from ourselves? How about the French saving their illicit investments in the country? How about the French filling their "traditional" role of opposing the U.S. on anything and everything other than when they want someting from us?

The article goes on to say this reflexive anti-Americanism is most ingrained among the intellectual elite and that it isn't deeply ingrained among the general populace, so there is no disagreement there, but it is the press and the elites that make the most noise and make the least sense.

Again, wrong. A review of the French press and elite intellectuals shows that their views are broadly similar to the French populations'. My brother was on the campus of the Sorbonne, France's Harvard, and received the same warm reception that he did on the streets of Paris.

France's investments in Iraq were far less than ours, and unlike us, the French did not sell Saddam weapons of mass destruction.

Of course they have strategic interests in opposing the U.S. on Iraq, but they are far more committed to the Western alliance than the goons in the White House are.

Their help was critical in fighting al-Quada, both in Afghanistan and throughout the world. I'm grateful for their help, and appreciate the prescient warnings they gave us on Iraq. I've been buying nothing but French instead of California wine to show my thanks.

I am no fan of America -- and in truth, some of what is said above about your country is valid -- but on the whole, that's harsh! The US has some good points. And most of my friends abroad know that. It is wrong to mistake a disaffection for the government for a disaffection for the people.

oh, the irony of making a generalisation in order to attack another generalisation...
any european who actually pays attention to what goes on elsewhere, e.g. in america, will know it's not as cut-and-dried as you make out we think.
Making generalisations is easy. tackling reality is a little more difficult

I am pleased your brother had a pleasant experience in France. So did I in '92.

But I would hardly consider a warm response to an anti-Bush t-shirt to be the definitive word on the French view of America.

I welcome any and all help and cooperation from the French, but their obstructionism is just that and I disagree utterly that the intellectual/elite position is the same as the population as whole.

Eric, I'm amazed that you would post this silly poorly reasoned and sloppily written polemic.

A cursory look through the essay reveals skewed logic, perverse generalizations, and errors of omission and of hard fact.

A quick example:

"The Italian Nobel laureate and novelist Dario Fo, a literary non-entity"

Well, he's not a novelist, but a playwright.
And as a Nobel prize-winner, it's truly laughable to call him a nonentity.

The essay is crap, Eric. Barger or any number of bloggers here could have come up with a more effective propaganda piece than this in about ten minutes.

Oh, yeah -- Vive la France!

I would scarcely consider an aside about the literary merit of a obscenely morally obtuse writer the downfall of the essay.

Other than a flurry of insulting, dismissive terms I have no idea what your objections are.

The writer is French, I am certain he will agree with the exhortation to continued existence for his country, as do I.

Eric:
The Fo issue was just easy to mock, because it's factually wrong and logically so silly. Faced with a Nobel-prize winner whose opinions he doesn't like, the author just dismisses him (hilariously illogically, since a Nobel-prize-winner is by definition not a nonetity). When I see stuff like that in an essay, I tend to dismiss the rest of it.

Attacking every misleading sentence in this crap is pointless, but since you ask for specifics, here's a just a small snippet that's certainly more than a mere "aside."

"The dominant idea in the Muslims' worldview, in truth, is that all humanity must obey the rules of their religion, whereas they owe no respect to the religions of others."

Now, were I to consider only the ravings of cerebrally-impaired but politically empowered right wing Christians, such as Judge Moore, for example, I could say something similar about the Christian worldview. Look up the definition of "evangelize" and think again about the "respect" the evangelical right in this country pays other religions.

Please contrast the lack of a "blanket condemnation" of Christianity in the above anti-Christian Right statement with what is spewed forth in the essay.

But point-by-point analysis of this mess is useless, anyway. The essay is inseparable from its point of view, and (from my experience) refutation of individual points, while simple, won't convince anyone who already believes that we're doing just fine here in the USA, and it's the French elites and their unexplainably low opinions of our capitalist society who are wrong. Pointing out obvious mistakes and fallacies in an essay based on them would be waste of time.

And, BTW, I don't "object" to the essay, I'm just amazed, because I know you, Eric, are very smart, and that you know this is ridiculous, overheated rhetoric disguised as commentary.
Vive la pants!

I should clarify that the majority of NATIVE French are simply anti-Bush, not anti-American. Among the country's immigrant Muslim population, anti-Semitism (or anti-Judaism) is rampant. Muslim immigrants in France, as in most European countries, are ghettoized, oppressed, and marginalized by the majority. They account for the overwhelming majority of anti-Jewish violence in the country.

Even after 9/11, the United States is a much better place for Arabs than most European countries.

So, to the extent that the French refuse to integrate Muslims into their society to wean them away from extremist Islam, they are culpable, yes. Europeans who criticize American racism are outrageous hypocrites.

thanks Mike, those are key points and I appreciate your intellectual honesty. I believe you try to be fair.

CC, The structure of the essay is this: present the anti-American view in its various manifestations, discuss its ramifications, discuss the writer's perception of "reality." Though the anti-view is a composite, none of it is made up, all of those anti-American views have been expressed by Euro-intellectuals and politicians, whether they actually believe them or not.

Revel gives the pro-American side to each of these issues; he says America, like any country, has problems, but the standard cartoon anti-American view allows for easy dismissal of criticism of those real problems. that seems pretty shrewd and realistic to me.

And if you are telling me that the extreme Christian right has as much sway in the Christian world as the Islamist view has in the the Islam world, you are sadly, grotesquely incorrect. I see no fear or hesitancy whatsoever from the mainstream Christian community to denounce the excesses of the far Christian right. I pray for the day when an Islamic mainstream denounces the Islamists as extreme and nonrepresentative of their views. It hasn't happened yet. The point being the "mainstream" Muslim viewpoint IS extreme, as extreme as Revel portrays it.

There are no major points in this essay where I disagree with Revel. He, and I, have nothing to apologize for.

Eric:

The obvious logical fallacies (start with the Straw Man argument, proceed through poisoning the well, generalization, etc.) of this essay make me think you just haven't read it through or really thought it through.
Or that propganda is more important to you than any kind of objective truth. A quick reread of your college logic texts might be in order here. Your second graff in the above post is almost a definitin of the straw man argument.

Oh well, why bother with rational, logical arguments about this important issue? Truth is, these crazy fucks had absolutely no reason to commit terrorism against us. We'll never understand it, because it's not understandable, so let's not try.

They do it because they are crazy and irrational and hate freedom. There are no other reasons. Just a bunch of random crazies out to terrorize a benign, loving nation that only wants what's best for the world.

Vive Larry Nance! Vive Judith Krantz! Vive Dennis Franz! Vive la Safety Dance!

No, the Islamic terrorists are not crazy or random. They are mostly simply EVIL. By this, I mean that they are motivated by hatred for us rather than love either for themselves or others.

These jihadists represent the most perfect example imaginable of what Ayn Rand referred to as "the hatred of the good for being the good." In their shame based thinking, they resent and hate us for being, as they (largely correctly) understand it, happy and successful. Their desire to spite us runs stronger in their souls than any desire they have to live.

You want to imply that Eric and others of us who believe in defending the country are simply being lazy or disingenuous in refusing to try to understand the real motivations of our enemies. This is not the case. I have a pretty good idea of their thinking- and judge it to be wicked.

You, on the other hand, seem to be unwilling to see their pure evil, even when they're murdering people in batches- and not even for any possible gain to themselves. You seem to be much more willing to condemn US for defending ourselves than you are to condemn the most wicked people imaginable- people who would GLADLY nuke an American city for the pure joy of seeing us suffer.

Sorry to again apply those pesky rules of logic, but Al, your appeal to emotion is unpersuasive. And I am proud that I don't consider any other human being "pure evil."

Sorry also to muddy your treatise on evil with pesky facts, but the only country that has ever "nuked a city" is us, led by, I believe, a tie salesman.

Using nuclear weapons in Japan 50+ years ago might indeed be considered morally questionable. It was not, however, the doing of Dubya, nor was it done just for the pure joy of causing suffering. The Japanese had directly attacked US, you may note, and had killed and tortured a good many of our people- and many others besides.

You might somewhat reasonably argue that our use of atom bombs was unnecessary overkill, but it was also certainly a defensive move that saved the lives of many US soldiers.

I am proud that I don't consider any other human being "pure evil."

You may be quite self-satisfied with your perceived superiority- but you're still DEAD WRONG- literally if the Islamofascists have their way. They would be no more impressed with your faux superiority than I am.

What I would like to cut it down to, CC, is what exactly do you disagree with and why? What is your position on anti-Americanism, the state of Islam in the world today, and what are the root causes of Islamic terror and how should they be dealt with?

The rest is just a rhetorical dance. I read it thoroughly, I agree with all the main points. And, by the way, this isn't a deductive argument, it's inductive based upon accumulating evidence. I don't get the sense we are even working with agreement on what constitutes evidence.