Listening vs. Talking

Thomas L. Friedman rights a correct, if somewhat obtuse, column today on how President Bush might improve our relations with Europe. He suggests that the next time President Bush swings through Europe, he tries listening instead of speaking.

If Mr. Bush did that none of the European pundits would be able to pick apart his speeches here and mock the contradictions between his words and deeds. None of them would comment on his delivery and what he failed to mention. Instead, all the European commentators, politicians and demonstrators would start fighting with one another over what to say to the president. It might even force the Europeans to get out of their bad habit of just saying, "George Bush," and everybody laughing or sneering as if that ends the conversation, and Europe doesn't have to declare what it stands for.

Listening is also a sign of respect. It is a sign that you actually value what the other person might have to say. If you just listen to someone first, it is amazing how much they will listen to you back. Most Europeans, though, are convinced that George Bush is deaf - that he cannot listen or hear.

This isn't a bad idea. But Mr. Friedman doesn't consider how President Bush and his supporters look at Europe. It's been clear that a lot on the right don't think that Europe is worth the respect that listening would require. That was a clunky sentance so let me put it another way. Europe doesn't have anything to say that President Bush and his supporters think is worth listening to.

Maybe a scene from The Simpsons Episode 1F19, "The Boy Who Knew Too Much" will make my point.

Blonde (Europe): Freddy honey? I think something just dropped into the back seat.
Freddy (President Bush's America): I'm not paying you to talk.

So while this is good advice, President Bush would risk offending a lot of his supporters to do it. He would also have to face criticism something neither he nor Karl Rove are much interested in. So, while it might be a good idea, it's not going to happen.