What do people in the Czech Republic think of Trump?

Reactions to Trump are surprisingly mixed in the Czech Republic. There is a range of opinions.

First the polls, courtesy of Kristyna Zemanova, whose comment  I have cut and pasted here, followed by my own anecdotal stories.

 Kristyna writes:

There were actually opinion polls about the American elections, both before and after the results. In october 2016 43% favoured Hillary, 13% Trump and the rest didn’t know/didn’t care. After the elections 22% were very or rather satisfied with the result, 22% were very or rather unsatisfied and the largest group - 37% was neither satisfied nor disatisfied. In december, 30% said that they trusted Trump while 43% didn’t trust him which left him with a score of -13. This was a significantly worse result than Obama’s (+26), but waaaay better than Merkel’s (-58). Putin was at -41.

So there you have it. Not as popular as Obama, but way more popular than Putin or the hated Merkel.

My own anecdotal evidence goes like this:

While some people are certainly against Trump, including some prominent figures, a surprising amount of people in my encounters support his positions — although in many ways, like any European country, this is a social democracy with a European health care system and so on, i.e., far to the left in American terms, it is actually much more conservative than a lot of Western European countries.

An amazing amount of people I know are against Muslim refugees settling in Europe. The fear of Islamic terrorism is very high. One woman I teach told me at the news of Trump’s election that the world was heading for a new era. And she seemed pretty pleased pleased by that.

In a discussion with my in-laws last weekend, they all told me they supported Trump.

It seems that his stances on immigration and anti-Islamic stance is something that speaks to them. One of them said, “I don’t like Russia. But I am not afraid of Russia. I am afraid of Muslims coming to Europe.” This was a direct quote.

Every argument I made against Trump was dismissed using what was in my opinion, really inane arguments, considering the intelligence of those involved. (I do have great respect for my girlfriend’s family, despite the fact that I disagree with them on some political issues.)

My arguments ran thus:

• He is a puppet of Putin
• He is anti-democratic
• He is anti-Freedom of Speech/Expression/Press
• He has massive conflicts of interest
• He is only out for himself

The idea that he might be working for Putin — was considered ridiculous. They openly scoffed at the idea; and they furthermore scoffed at the idea that any of the other nationalist politicians active in current Europe were in any way tied to Russia.

The idea that Trump was anti-Democratic — was also dismissed due to, I believe, a deep seated cynicism involving Democracy itself. The attitude seemed to be that all politicians were were anti-Democratic so what did it matter?

The conflicts of issue/corruption argument — seemed to generate a basic “well, they are all corrupt anyway, so what can you do?”

Anti-Freedom of Speech/Expression/Press arguments — they seem to think that American institutions are too strong to prevent Trump really going too far. They actually have more faith in American institutions than I do, when it comes to protecting civil liberties.

So there was actually a lot of double-think going on: Their arguments boiled down come down to two incompatible notions:

• America is hopelessly corrupt anyway, so what does it matter?
• Yet has institutions that will stop Trump from becoming the American Putin. (or whatever: obviously Trump is Trump and Putin is Putin.)

Euro-scepticism runs pretty deep in the Czech Republic so a lot of Trump’s frankly anti-European/anti Merkel rhetoric resonates much more than I think Western Europeans realize. Or maybe they do realize it, but they don’t post here on Quora.

If that boggles your mind, remember that everything Trump says or tweets is translated into Czech, thus cleansing it of the usual malapropisms that partially fuel the anti-Trump resentment among those with better English skills. Also his tweet-tantrums are not as widely reported in Czech news as they are on English-speaking news. English is widely spoken here but not like it is in Scandinavia or Denmark: few people are actually gaining news from English sources.

It is also a fact that supporters of Czech centre-right (as I am, actually) don’t quite understand that the Republican/Trump agenda is quite a bit more radical than they would be comfortable with — you, the anti-science bit or the anti-abortion bit, or the anti-LGBT bit.

You know, most people are not students of American culture. Especially if they don’t speak English.

I hesitate to put a percentage of how many people support Trump, but I would say it is far greater than I personally, as a vociferous anti-Trump American, am comfortable with.

But I would guess it is a slight majority, especially when you consider that the ones in the Czech Republic that are most likely to support Trump-like ideas are the lower working class: I don’t have a lot of contact with those people: most of the Czechs I know are either middle class and educated — or teenage students.

I am also in a particularly Christian region of this mostly atheistic country and that may play into the attitudes I am seeing, too, I suppose.

As for politicians, the Czech President Zeman enthusiastically supports Trump (and Putin), and penned a fawning syncophantic letter to Trump in November that was published and widely reported in the press. (Badly translated into English, which, as a part-time translator, pissed me off, because I am probably cheaper than whoever he got to work on it, but never mind.)

Of course not everyone supports Trump. I have spoken people who distrust and dislike the Donald. There is a range of opnions, as I said. But the anti-Trump people in my vicinity (for example, my girlfriend) do not seem to be as openly vocal as those who support him.

Are Europeans really less friendly than Americans?

I am not really sure that this is true. I think it only seems that way.

Caveat: sterotypes are useless.

I remember when I first went to a grocery store in Europe I was nervous that someone was going to speak to me and my lack of local language skills was going to be horrifyingly, humiliatingly revealed. Everyone would look at me with xenophobic hate in their eyes. I would be cast out, spat upon, thrown down and kicked — told to get out of the country and go back to whatever hellhole I crawled from.

But that didn’t happen.

What happened was that the place was filled with bitter scowling people waiting in queues while bitter scowling shop assistants rang their purchases up with a snarl. No one spoke to each other. No one even looked at each other. No one bagged anybody's groceries but their own. 

 I was relieved.

But then I thought, How unhappy the people here are! How sad! What squalid, angry little lives they must live!

Eventually I learned better.

They are neither more nor less friendly in my opinion. It really is simply a matter of societal norms. And the differences in how the people in the cultures define ‘coldness’ or ‘friendliness.’

Conversely, one thing you hear from Europeans all the time is that American “friendliness” is “fake.” That ‘they smile but they don’t really mean it.”

As an American that assertion has always stung. It is dehumanizing, when you think about it. So, if I am friendly to a stranger, I am automatically not to be trusted? I am automatically a phony? That is not only offensive, it is…perverse.

At some point I heard an American expat say the same thing and I retorted that ‘In [Europe] can you stay here so long that a smile turns into a frown!”

And, that, in fact, really is the‘heart of the matter. It is polite and part of societal norms for Americans to smile, greet each other warmly, and chat while waiting in queues or whatever. (NOt that it always happens, but it happens more often there.)

You meet someone’s eyes, you give them a nod or a wave and a smile. You wink at the girl serving you. You French kiss the orderly at the hospital…OK, maybe that would be taking it too far..

Of course that does not mean the old American guy making jokes about your baby or the muscle-bound man who kindly and quickly helps you to carry your bags down the stairs at the subway stop is going to invite you home, cook dinner for you and give you a back rub while you watch your favorite TV show.

Why should it? That doesn’t mean he is fake. It’s just social lubricant. It makes waiting in the queue less of a hell. Because waiting in a queue is, frankly, hellish, isn’t it? It feels good to give someone a hand, doesn’t it?

Don’t you think that standing at a cash register taking people’s money all day long while they buy adult diapers, condoms and unhealthy food would suck? Doesn’t it make sense to start smiling and making jokes to the endless line of customers? Doesn’t it make things easier? I mean, the customers are in hell, standing in queue. And you, the cashier, are in your own hell, taking their money for a measley wage in a job where you are regarded as idiotic regardless of actual intelligence; where you don’t have health insurance; where you can be fired for practically nothing; where all you have to look forward to is fifteen glorious minutes of break-time with a chemical-filled microwave burrito with American “cheese” melted on top. (I have the recipe — message me for details.)

(pictured above: the American dream sans cheese.)

This is how Americans think. And that's why they are nice. It just feels better.

But a lot of Europeans* don’t see it that way. They see the whole process of chatting to strangers as ‘phony.’ Maybe even dangerous.

But that’s because societal norms dictate that they think that way: simply put, a European acting friendly might indeed have an ulterior motive than an American doesn’t have. Both are just ultimately running blindly to the whip of their culture. Like throughbreds in a race that ends up the same either way: in the cold dark grave.

Anyway, I know that I have had many a stranger glare and scowl at me in Europe; but when an mutual friend introduces me to them they are nearly always warm and friendly and kind and helpful. Once they know you are not insane, they are just as nice as Americans.

Mind you I think the American way is more pleasant. But then, on the other hand, at least in Europe, I don’t get some random old man jabbering on at me about the Broncos and last Sunday’s football game, which is a blessing because I don’t care about sports.

So when Americans say that Europeans are ‘unfriendly’, or Europeans say Americans are ‘phony’, I think they are simply making the mistake of projecting the norms of their own culture on the other.

*Europeans vary, of course. I expect some countries do not fit this stereotype at all.

ASOIAF: Who are the two kings who must die in order for the Dragon to rise again?

This is a good question, and I have wondered the same. The idea that two kings having to die in order to ‘wake dragons from stone’ (not for the dragon to rise again) ASOIAFis pretty clear from Melisandre’s and Aemon’s conversation in Jon I in A Dance for Dragons.

I honestly think the dragons have already been woken from stone, literally. And the kings that fueled those dragons’ awakening are Khal Drogo and Daenerys’ unborn child, Rhaego, the Stallion who [was supposed to] Mount the World.

The funeral pyre, the witch’s encantations, the dead horse, the painful execution of Mirri Maaz Duur. Perhaps all that was necessary too.

But I strongly believe that two sacrifices with king’s blood must die for a dragon to be born. And it’s better to sacrifice an unborn child than an already-born child, if you are going to do that. Burn, baby, burn.

Of course the recipe has been lost over the years, suppressed by the Maesters who think the practice of sacrificing humans should probably be best left to the past.

That’s what happened at Summer hall, in my belief.

Aegon V, was trying to sacrifice the unborn Rhaegar in order to raise a dragon so he could implement his reforms of peasants’ rights. The good outweighed the bad for Aegon.

The only thing that went wrong was that Ser Duncan the Tall, thick as a castle wall, screwed it up by rescuing Rhaegars mother and Rhaegar, thus saving their lives while screwing up the spell.

So will it happen again? I don’t think so. There is some indication from the Theon chapter from The Winds of Winter that STannis might sacrifice Theon to the heart tree. Theon definitely has king’s blood(though not Targaryen blood.) And Shireen will probably end up crisped venison, too.

But if the ‘dragon’ is Jon Snow, one doesn’t really need to sacrifice anybody to the dead to resurrect him.

All you need, from the examples of Beric Dondarrion and Lady Stoneheart, apparently, is the Will of R’hllor and someone willing to kiss a corpse.

And then you’ve got your Snow Wight.

ASOIAF: Should I read the combined order of A Dance with Dragons and A Feast for Crows, or should I read them separately?

I first read them separately and enjoyed both. But I enjoyed them much more in the combined order. (I found a pirated e-copy that combined them online —as I had already bought the books twice I didn’t feel bad about downloading it.)

Personally —and it really is personal — I would advise reading the combined order, if you can deal with switching back and forth(or if you find a copy like I did where it’s done for you.)

It’s not just that you don’t have to go a whole book wondering what has happened to Tyrion, Jon Snow, Daenerys, Davos, Stannis and Bran.

It’s also that the book feels like a sequel to A Storm of Swords. The conversation between Stannis and Jon in Jon 1 feels fresher as it hasn’t been too long since we have seen Jon elected as Lord Commander. Whereas in the separate reading order, we have gone more than 800 pages.

Furthermore, I would say that the books work well together thematically — as one. . When viewed together there are a number of “story clusters” that harmonize:

• The Ruler chapters: Cersei, Jon Snow and Daenerys all groping for solutions to complex situations.
• The Learner chapters: Sansa, Bran, Arya. All of these young Starks are on a quest to self-empowerment in very different contexts and situations.
• The Wandering chapters: Jaime, Brienne and Tyrion. All characters being blown by fate in various directions as they deal with their own inner lives.
• The North Remembers chapters: (Reek, Davos, eventually Asha) in which the political situation of the North is explored as well as the fascinating character of Reek.
• Plus Dorne and Iron Islands.
The only thing is I hope you are patient. Combining the order makes for a 2000 page book. You can go a hundred pages between Tyrion chapters, for example. The chapters in those books, particularly in A Dance with Dragons are longer than earlier books.
For me the combined order makes for the best book of the series in some ways(though it is very much a building volume, a set up of things that are going to occur in future novels, much as A Game of Thrones was.)

Written January 10th