I WAS born in Bolton and was raised in Kearsley.

I left about five years ago, by way of a two year spell in Eastern Holland, and I now live in a leafy working class suburb of Boston. Before you ask, I don't own a swimming pool.

I was recently asked this question from a Texan friend of mine. "Don't limeys like us 'muricans?" I figured out that "'muricans" was actually Texan for "Americans".

The wave of anti-Americanism hasn't gone unnoticed here. The news media broadcasted European anti-war sentiment on a daily basis before its attention shifted when the confict started. I began asking myself why we Europeans (and we are, whether we like it or not) are inherently so anti-American. Is it jealousy? Is it because their worldly ignorance is misunderstood by us as arrogance? Or is it not really anti-Americanism, but more of an anti-American-Leaderism? I made that word up, but it serves the purpose.

A potential American leader has to identify with the electorate in a number of ways. The current one, George Walker "Dubya" Bush, is a recovering alcoholic and makes no secret about it. Is this representative of the American public? No, of course not. But, he is also a very outspoken born again Christian, and this is a big hit with the conservative religious right. An American president is normally elected on his ability to lead both politically and morally. Regular churchgoing is seen here, more than most other western countries, as an important aspect of moral maturity. He was never an overachiever in school; in fact his grades were pretty average. Any of his school chums are the first to admit that Dubya, succeeding in becoming the leader of the Free World, was a complete surprise to them. So how did this happen?

Maybe, the voting public just "gave him a break". The consensus is that Mr Al Gore lost the election himself, and Mr Bush won by default. Gore appeared to be too clever, too arrogant for the people, while Dubya's "Fuzzy Washington Math" stance charmed the voters.

So, where is this rant leading? Dubya has been very sincere about his foreign policy; well, as sincere as he can be, because in all honesty, he doesn't know very much about foreign policy. Imagine arriving in Spain, the first American President to do so in a very long time, and then call the premier "Sr. Anzar" instead of "Sr. Aznar". I know it's not much but it's the little things that make all the difference. The undeniable truth is that a lot of Americans relate to him, especially the ones in rural bible belt of Middle America.

If you don't take anything from this, just ask yourself one question. If it wasn't a "gun-slinging Texan cowboy and his posse" attempting to remove a sadistic genocidal tyrant, but it was a more Euro-friendly, tree-hugging, cosmopolitan President, would we Europeans be more open to it? I think probably so. A lot more Americans would be open to it too. Although, I'm still not too sure about the French.

Don't we all remember Clinton vs. Milosevic? The United Nations didn't need to sanction that war, so why does it now? Is it just that Dubya's got our backs up? Is this anti-Americanism, or is it Anti-Bushism? I told my Texan friend that we weren't so keen on Bush, and he seemed a little happier. Apparently Dubya was born in Connecticut anyway.

Mark Ainscow

Massachusetts,

USA