US to UK: You Think We Care?

Remember that book, He's Just Not That into You: The No-Excuses Guide to Understanding Guys? There are times when I think Britons should remember this message when they consider the nature of the so-called "Special Relationship" between Britain and the United States. Today is one of those occasions when one is reminded again - as if it was really necessary - that the relationship is a just a little bit more important and rather more special to Britain than it is to the United States.

Though the American newspapers covered Gordon Brown's first visit to the United States as Prime Minister, they understandably didn't attach the same importance to his meetings with George Bush as did the British press. (The Post, for instance, put its report on page 12, and neither it nor the NYT saw fit to editorialise on the meeting this morning). As I say, this is understandable and scarcely something to whinge about.

It was noticeable, mind you, that the internet seemed, if anything, even less interested in Brown's visit or what it might entail for US-UK relations. True, National Review Online ran a brace of pieces by Englishmen and The Weekly Standard carried a slightly odd article by Irwin Stelzer. But that was about it. Nothing in the Nation, The American Prospect, Reason, The Washington Monthly or even The New Republic - nor, really, was there much, if any, comment on these magazines' respective blogs. (NRO's The Corner was equally silent. So too was TIME's Swampland).

Well, that's fine. No damage done and I certainly don't mean to give the impression that one is whining. But it's another reminder that American elite journalism's indifference to British politics can be quite striking. It may be that the assumption is that Britain will always be there and, consequently, is a less pressing story than it would otherwise be. Or it may be something else entirely. Maybe, like Canada, Britain slips under the radar because it is seen as a member of the family one only needs to remember to send a Christmas card to each year whereas places such as France are weird and odd and different and thus need to be explained or confronted? Either way, it's striking.

Perhaps readers can help explain this?

Comments

[Angel]

Wow. Thanks for the info. I can't believe I'm even admitting this, even though you don't know me, but I didn't even know Gordon Brown was PM of Britain. In fact, I just learned last year that Tony Blair was the previous PM. Why am I so in the dark about all this? Perhaps it's the American journalists' fault. Perhaps it's my own for not keeping myself more informed.

[Matilda Sasquatch]

Britain, Canada, Australia to be referred as "as a member of the family" is a compliment to these countries and an insult to the US. We consider them more like our pet poodles, parrots and puppies of sorts--pathetically and embarrasingly ever acquiescent, yes always there for us. After all, where else can they go to? We toss an occasional bone of compliment and hold them on a tight leash lest one rare independent minded leader of theirs may act with impunity.

[Freelancerr]

I'm reminded of that quote by Julian Barnes: "every country in the world is more interested in America than America is interested in the world"....he went on to explain the power dynamics behind that statement, but I generally agree with the viewpoint. We don't really seriously care that much about anybody unless they start to affect the way we live (adversely, for the most part).

[campbell]

I don't think that there is a single Briton who has reached the years of discretion and is currently drawing breath who is not entirely aware that the realtionship is 'special' only to us.

When Harold MacMillan fantasised that we might be Greece to their Rome he showed an uncharacteristic lack of grasp of ancient history.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The nation is tired of George W. Bush and disinclined to pay attention to whatever he does, even when he meets with Gordon Brown?