Candle, I hope you are wrong. Even common sense says we are, on the whole, to be given a bit more credit than this.
Bush was elected with a minority of the popular vote for one thing.
Colin Powell has been put in a no win position as SOS. Too bad. But I would rather have him there with the potential of exerting his influence than to have another Ashcroft type in the cabinet. Powell being acquiescent and quiet right now is still more reassuring than to have a hawk without a brain in his position. At least he can, and hopefully will, make a difference ultimately.
As far as "confusing" the domestic way of life with foreign policy, I like to think that this is not a problem amongst we the American people. But I understand your concern that it can and does appear that way to "outsiders". But certainly with exceptions. Look at what Traderfut says. It boils down to an arab living in western europe who admires America and it's people and despises it's foreign policies.
The good news is we can easily change our "policies". (Every election we get a big chance). It is our society, our way of life, that will (hopefully) not change so readily. If at all. The one thing we all seem to have in common is a belief in defending our freedoms. We hold them very dear.
We surely have an "image" problem right now worldwide. You yourself seem to be one of the more vocal critics of our foreign policies. And justly so. I feel the same, as you know.
Only difference is I seem to hold out more hope that we can remedy our woes more easily than do you. Here, I hope you are wrong again. But we have the same desires essentially....to keep our freedoms and not be the world's policeman, etc.
It was your comment about looking forward to the "ultimate deteriorization" (is that a word?) of our "empire?" to which I object. I sincerely have faith that we can, as we have before, adapt to a changing world and do it in a way that is universally beneficial.
The thought of a "global Islamic" competing factor is kind of scary to me now. Not that I disagree with your contention that the world NEEDS diversity. It does. Just seemingly a movement based (apparently) on conquest and intolerance (sorry TF, but it is not my words...or ideas) should not to be considered as a viable or desirable balancing factor. How about a globalized version of Buddhism? Hindu? Atheist? Shinto? Jewish? Any non, or less aggressive, or expansive culture. Or religion. We need tolerance to balance our act. Particularly if the US continues on it's increasingly steady course towards the Christian Right. This is not the direction nor the intent our country was founded on. (Remember separation of church and state?...Ashcroft and Bush apparently don't). Hopefully the course will reverse. Or slow down at least. Problem is, Bush will have the opportunity to manipulate the Supreme Court with appointments that we will have to live with for 30 or even 40 years. Scary thought that so much power can be granted in such a short time that will last for such a long time by a guy put in office without a majority of votes, let alone a mandate.
Peace, and good trading,
rs7
