Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
CONSERVATIVES ARE TURNING JAPANESE, I REALLY THINK SO. Perhaps because conservatism in the U.S. is collapsing faster than the Tour de France, Republicans have recently consoled themselves with foreign elections. Most recently they spent a good deal of time crowing about the victory of Nicolas Sarkozy in France (better not tell them about his fondness for national-champion industries), and now they're turning their attention to Japan, where the ruling LDP faces a tough election this weekend.
Not only do they support the conservative, corrupt and generally hidebound LDP, they specifically support Shinzo "Comfort women? What comfort women?" Abe (see this article by Matt Sledge for more on that) because he has the most pro-U.S. and anti-Chinese foreign policy vision. In particular, the good folks at AEI like his plan to "integrating East Asia into a common economic bloc and linking democracies in the region to create an 'arc of freedom and prosperity'" -- a "co-prosperity sphere" you might call it. No, I don't think Abe has evil imperialist designs on East Asia, but I also don't think we should hope for the victory of man whose only foreign policy achievement has been at pointlessly ratcheting up tension in the area. How exactly is continuously goading China by lying about the past supposed to make us safer?
I also enjoyed this segment:
The vote likely will pivot on scandal and mismanagement of the country's enormous pension system. This is a shame. The election really should be about Mr. Abe's vision for a more activist international role for Japan.
Think for a moment about just how arrogant that is. The Japanese should ignore how well their government is, you know, governing and instead make their electoral decisions based on how well their leaders serve what right-wing U.S. pundits think are our interests in the area. Clearly, after all, the most important thing for the average Japanese citizen is how aggressively his country expands it's military.
Things were so much simpler when we paid millions of dollars to get friendly politicians elected in Japan. I'm sure the AEI is drafting a paper on it now...
--Sam Boyd
COMMENTS (8)
They did this with Zapatero's election in Spain as well. They pretended the only issue that should matter for Spaniards is that Aznar supported US foreign policy.
(Of course, they also said confidently that Zapatero could not realistically seek "a separate peace" with the terrorists. In fact, Spain hasn't been attacked by Al Qaeda again since Zapatero's election; it's a wonder what getting out of the middle east will do for you.)
Posted by: Dilan Esper | July 28, 2007 1:56 AM
Actually, isn't it pretty much SOP for pundits and editorialists everywhere to give free advice to foreign governments? The NYT does it, the WaPo does it, and I know for sure the Asahi Shimbun and Yomiuri Shimbun do it. It's always been arrogant, but it's an accepted tradition for newspapers round the world.
Just because US wingnuts are looking offshore for ponies doesn't mean they've invented a new form of arrogance.
Posted by: Tony | July 28, 2007 4:58 AM
If conservatives in the Us become more like conservatives in Japan, we may actually be able to do something about global warming.
Of course, I'd image THOSE differences center on the vastly different roles nature plays in Christianity vs. Shintoism.
Posted by: soullite | July 28, 2007 10:35 AM
The thing that seemed really arrogant to me was the presumption that, even though he admitted the government was terrible it was still in the interests of Japanese people to vote for it just because that would help us.
Posted by: Sam Boyd | July 28, 2007 11:21 AM
uh... do you know what that song is about?
Posted by: David | July 29, 2007 12:38 AM
I certainly know what it's about, David . . . and that makes it all the more appropriate, since American cons are a bunch of wankers!
Posted by: The Caped Composer | July 29, 2007 3:49 PM
Ah, I get you now. Should have read that paragraph more carefully. My mistake.
Posted by: Tony | July 29, 2007 5:21 PM
If you have to ask the question, David, it makes me wonder if you do.
In interviews, The Vapours say the song is about someone feeling like they're completely alienated from society because their love is far away from them (they make that most blatant in the bridge to the song). Contrary to popular belief, the song is not about an orgasm, onanism, or any other fun "O" word.
Of course, the idea that the AEI is feeling alienated because of an upswing in liberalism makes them feel far from what they love (being in power) is also entertaining.
Posted by: 32_Footsteps | July 30, 2007 11:52 AM