How Americans Are Different

How Americans Are Different

Those outside the U.S. tend to misunderstand just how much American voters support leaders and problem solvers. Ronald Reagan’s presidency was one example of this phenomenon

By Andrew Nagorski

Newsweek Russia

Updated: 4:52 p.m.ET June07, 2004

June 7 - Sooner or later if you are an American traveling abroad these days, someone pops the inevitable question: "Surely, the Americans won’t re-elect Bush, will they?" The anticipated answer is contained in the tone of the question, which is accompanied by a smirk or an imploring look desperately seeking reassurance. If the questioner has at least a modicum of tact, he refrains from expressing his other thought: "Surely, American voters can’t be that stupid?" When confronted with that situation, I respond to both the explicit and implicit question. "Americans may not be terribly good about understanding the world, but the world doesn’t do much better when it comes to understanding America," I say. "As of today, I wouldn’t put any bets on Bush or Kerry. The election is wide open." The startled looks and awkward pause that follow speak volumes about our differing perceptions.

Yes, Iraq is a mess and Bush’s approval ratings are falling. But what is likely to determine the outcome of this election is not how Iraq looks now, but how the Iraqi venture looks in September and October when the campaign is in full swing. The other key factors will be the state of the economy, and what kind of challenger John Kerry proves to be. So far, he has been tentative on the issues and failed to connect on a personal level with the electorate. In a presidential system, that personal chemistry between the candidate and the voters is vitally important. In 2000, Al Gore’s stiff, off-putting personal style was the key factor that tipped the balance in George Bush’s favor. It all adds up to a complex equation, but ultimately U.S. elections are about leadership—and that’s where Americans and both friends and foes abroad so often view the same events and pronouncements through different prisms.

This is a phenomenon that started long before the Bush administration, and is a product of Americans’ unique blend of idealism and pragmatism—or what others often call naiveté. In the early 1980s, the Italian writer Luigi Barzini aptly summed up the difference between Europeans and Americans. While Europeans believe that many problems are simply unsolvable, he argued, Americans believe "that all problems not only must be solved, but also that they can be solved, and that in fact the main purpose of man’s life is the solution of problems." Thus, Americans are prone to elect leaders who promise to attack problems rather than let them fester.

And not just small problems. Several presidents over the last century have offered daring visions to remake the world. Think Woodrow Wilson and his ambition "to make the world safe for democracy," or Jimmy Carter and his then startling push for human rights across the globe. They were both Democrats, but the tradition is bipartisan. Republican Ronald Reagan overturned decades of containment theory to push for the demise of "the evil empire." President Bush is now gambling that the toppling of Saddam Hussein will eventually put pressure on all Arab regimes to reform domestically and stop breeding terrorists for export.

Granted, American optimism that problems must have solutions has led us into some of our greatest blunders like the war in Vietnam or the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba. But U.S. presidents know that they also can pay a high price for inaction, especially in an era when the country is the sole remaining superpower. Take Rwanda in the 1990s. The whole world let the massacres go on unchecked, but, fairly or not, the Clinton administration bore the major moral responsibility.

Bold actions often pay long-term dividends, even if they are widely criticized at the time. Many world leaders contemptuously dismissed Carter’s human rights campaign, but today this is the most acclaimed part of his legacy. During the early days of the Reagan administration, the new president was caricatured as a "cowboy" and a "warmonger." As a Moscow correspondent for NEWSWEEK at that time, I found Russians constantly asking me: "Why does America want war?" When Reagan traveled to Berlin in 1987 to deliver his famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech, most West Germans scoffed at his allegedly simplistic thinking. Today, Europe is a transformed continent no longer divided by walls or heavily fortified borders, and, for all its problems, Russia is a transformed country. Bush clearly hopes that his Iraq gamble will be as successful in transforming the Middle East, looking very different in hindsight than it does now. But the president needs some tangible signs of progress by the fall to convince the voters he’s on the right course. If those don’t materialize and Kerry wins, don’t expect the tensions between Washington and the rest of the world to miraculously disappear. Sure, a Kerry administration can adopt a more conciliatory tone, and place a greater value on traditional diplomatic stroking than the Bush administration, which has needlessly run roughshod over the sensibilities of even its closest allies. But whether it’s Bush or Kerry, the president will still have to make those weighty decisions—and, often, major gambles—that many other world leaders can avoid. Because he will have to lead at home and abroad, and because the vast power and influence of the United States sparks resentment no matter who is in charge, American voters will trust their own instincts about the best man for the job. Even if the rest of the world would vote differently.

NEWSWEEK RUSSIA is NEWSWEEK’S new Russian-language edition. Its first issue went on sale on June 8.