perfidy

"A voter rejection of Bush's policies will be seen by the rest of the world as demonstrative of the true nature of the citizenry..."

If Bush loses re-election, it will only show that we're a true democracy and thus have a peaceful transfer of power. The rest of the world knows that [the last election's weirdness notwithstanding.]

My two cents come from history:

If Kerry wins he will inherit Bush's mess and thus much of his policy decisions. Nixon couldn't walk far from Johnson during Vietnam. Kerry can't change much in Iraq. Still, "Thinking is not the reiteration of bromides" is my quote of the day, too. Well said, Mr. Will!

Ross:

I was reading along, following things well, until I hit the money line, and I've got to ask:

What the hell does "a faith-based government" have to do with anything? It appears, on multiple re-reads, to have nothing to do with any content in your comments, or in George Wills'.

Until I reached that jarring reality, I found my self not disagreeing with you as much as I know in my heart that I should. And I still don't utterly disagree; in fact, I'm sure that Kerry would reset our relationship with the rest of the world, and that quarter would be given.

Where I depart is the assertion that, as the biggest swinging dick on the block, we as a country are somehow required to lower ourselves to the point where our foes might be able to consider themselves our equal. This ain't golf, it's geopolitics, and everyone plays to scratch.

It's a fine balance that must be struck - contrary to one reading of the previous paragraph, I don't believe in American control of anything but America, and it's possible to manufacture enough dissent in the rest of the world that, like the Romans, we dissolve into formerness. The corollary is that I don't believe in anyone else's controlling America either. At all. Ever.

I don't think that we're anywhere near the precipice of world domination and the backlash it would justifiably bring, nor that four more years of Bush in the presidency will put us there.

And I do believe that if Kerry is the answer, then it must have been a stupid question.

Why do you want to *reset* yourselves with the rest of the world? Do you really want the respect of the French for example? (trick question - you'll never get their respect, you're 'simplisme').

Patton has made some good points - America does not want to control anywhere else other than America. Also, America should never, ever have anyone else control America.

Compare and contrast with Blair (highly over-rated in the US in my opinion) - he's giving as much of our sovereignty to the EUcrats as he can. Thank your lucky stars you have a second amendment that makes your government *think* about things like that.

Bush may not be perfect, but he's on the side of Americans. Remember that, and think about us Brits who have a PM who thinks we're all Europeans - guess what, we're not (and never will be).

Tony, you make a good point about soverignty and self-determination. Do you think Blair will ever get the Euro vote he so ardently desires?

I don't know if you get it on the other side of the great pond, but the Atlantic Monthly ran a long cover story this month on the empty shell that is Tony Blair. I am favorably disposed to Mr. Blair (after all, he says things that are pleasing to my filthy Yankee ears), but I'm not blind to the mess he's made as PM. I also seem to remember a time before September 2001 when Tony Blair was a faintly ridiculous character to Americans, lost in his tepid attempts to triangulate policy based on public opinion.

Patton, great closing line! While I have been very busy at work - I have been reading "The Pentagon's New Map" by Thomas Barnett. Barnett is a democrat, just to forestall Ross, but he talks compellingly about how America's preeminent military might makes us Hobbes' Leviathan in the poorer, nastier parts of the globe. As I once said in these pages about a year ago, we have great power. (In fact, unparalleled, completely in a class of our own power) And with great power comes great responsibility. The spiderman theory of American foriegn policy, if you will.

Whatever the objections of the Europeans to our cowboy ways, someone will have to take point, walk into the jungle, and kill the bad people. Because of the current military balance of power, that will always be us. However, the one critical failing of the Bush administration in its foriegn policy is not offering a compelling vision of what our victories in the war on terror will lead to. As Barnett says, you need to offer a picture of the future you want to create, and how you are going to go about it.

Kerry does not seem to me up to the task of continuing the fights that need to be fought. However, someone needs to stand up and give us some information on what the end of all this is. "Transform the middle east" is all well and good - and I agree - but we need more details. I think I know what they are, in outline. Many conservative bloggers, especially Clueless, have gone on at length about the strategic rationales for the war on terror. But he is not an administration spokesman.

I'll be posting more on Barnett's book, after we recover from a sacked Project Manager, and after I finish the space war scenario.

Johno,
Anything is possible regarding that 'vote'. I say 'vote', because if the British people 'vote' no, then the question will be put again, until the 'correct' response is got. Standard EU practices I'm afraid. There was talk a while back of Blair offering the 'nuclear option' of a vote to have Britain in the EU or not at all - this came to nothing, when it was pointed out that he probably would not get the answer he wants!

Don't get the Atlantic Monthly myself, but I do read quite a lot of American news sources and blogs - enough to know that Blair is highly over-rated by many Americans. I'll see if the AM is online and dig out the article as it seems spot-on about Blair.

Don't forget that Blair is a Socialist - something the US press doesn't mention too often. Had a Conservative Prime Minister been in power on 9/11 the US would have had an even stronger response from our country.

And as for shifting policy based on public opinion - well, Teflon Tony is a master at it, but he does seem to have principles, some of which I agree with - Iraq for example, and some of which I despise - anything to do with the EU really.

Oh and Buckethead - your space war scenarios are top notch!

Tony:

I, like many Americans, think rather (too?) highly of Mr. Blair, based on your comments and those put forth by Johno from Atlantic Monthly.

Perhaps it's a comparative thing, in my case - he is, to Labour, what Bill Clinton was to the Democrats here, only without all the reported philandering. In each case, they did a credible job toning down some of the more outrageous tendencies of their parties.

Clause Four of the Labour manifesto wasn't just Socialist, it was outright collectivist. Blair's ability to get Labour to climb down from this precipice made them electable again, and established him as less Socialist than we'd all become used to in the party. Not that it's any of my business, as a non-Brit.

He's a control-freak, it would seem, and a believer in a different sort of nanny-state than prior Labour governments. What's the alternative for Labour in Britain, though? Gordon Brown? Eeeyew.

Patton (great nick by the way),
Yes, they (Nu-Labour, now called Labour again because the transition is considered 'complete') had to jettison some age-old collectivist ideals to get into government, but the hard-core are still there and continually pushing to get Labour back to "it's roots" again. This does end up influencing government policy.

He's certainly a control-freak, but I wouldn't say his vision of the nanny-state is that different from previous Labour governments, in that government is seen as the solution in almost all circumstances, with the private sector being the milch-cow for weird and wonderful schemes that promise much and deliver little.

As for Gordy, he has his own backers, who are not insubstantial. Because of this, initiatives of Blairs that are actually reasonably well thought out (thinking of foundation hospitals - a kind of public-private hybrid) are so watered down in their effectiveness that they are the worst of all possible worlds. There is supposed to be a pact between them that Tony will be PM for one term. then Gordy gets a go (highly democratic don't you think?). Well, as you'll know Tony is sitting on the PM seat for the second time, and there's talk of him still on the pot (sorry seat) if Labour get a third term. What Gordy thinks of all this is not known.

All I'm really saying is that Blair is the very well turned out face of a party that is still collectivist in its ideals (I don't know if they still sing "The International" at party conferences, but they do have some hard-core lefties at the same conference that Blair goes to), and that the American public should be told that he's not all he's cracked up to be. But it seems you already knew that! :)

Tony, thanks! I think you're right about the EU voting. We've seen it before in other countries. And based on the proposed constitution, I can in bad moments really worry about the future of any polity with that monstrosity as its defining political instrument.

Patton: Faith-based government refers to the larger risk-taking this administration engages in; I've written about that before. This is an administration full of gamblers. They take huge chances, and rarely succeed. They have some sort of "faith" that what they're doing is right, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, they apparently alter _nothing_.

Their tax policy is driven by these principles, as is their foreign policy, their environmental policy, and their economic policy. In each case there is little factual support: Only a strong belief that they are somehow doing the right thing, and that it'll all turn out in the end.

The statement does, of course, draw a parallel between Mr. Bush's religiousity and his governing style.

Ross:

Thanks for the clarification, and in that light, I see precisely the point you were trying to make. (I'm too much of a noob to have seen your prior art on the matter, perhaps?)

I don't fully agree, mind you, since in most cases, there's enough factual support that it's a reasonable debate on each of the subjects you mention.

But I disagree quite a bit less.