During his campaign, Mr. Bush said many sensible things about foreign policy, including the need for the US to have"humility" in its relations with other nations. But since September 11, neoconservative influence on US foreign policy has reached new heights. We have grave concerns over the doctrine of preventive war and the seeming abdication of the responsibilities of Congress with respect to committing lives and treasure to armed conflict.

Well said!

Justin Raimondo - 9/12/2005

What about the neocons at Cato who support the war?

Mark Brady - 9/12/2005

It's the concluding paragraph that I find problematic, no, pretty awful.

"Globalisation has been primarily an American undertaking and it has been good for the world's poor. The country's science, technology, and entrepreneurship are healing the sick, cleaning the environment, and making the world a better and more enjoyable place in which to live. America is a great nation with little to apologise for. It has an enemy to defeat. The challenge is not to defeat itself."

Globalisation, conceived of as world economic integration, is the continuation of a trend that began many centuries ago as a result of individuals in many different countries looking for opportunities to trade and prosper. It was not, and even now is not “primarily an American undertaking.” Indeed, insofar as it is promoted by the American state and by Americans using their national state to lever open doors to managed trade, is less successful than it would otherwise be. American science, technology, and entrepreneurship do make a large contribution but it’s not evident that this is disproportionate to the size of the American economy.

The only way to make sense of the statement that "America is a great nation with little to apologize for" is to distinguish between American society and economy—the spontaneous orders that have emerged as a result of the activities of free Americans—and the American nation-state—the political entity that has taxed, plundered, and murdered its own citizens and far too much of the rest of the world. Country and nation-state—antonyms, not synonyms. The country is great, the nation-state stinks.

And if readers were to point out that an ideology of individual liberty is an integral part of the American political tradition, I would say that’s equally true of the British political tradition and it doesn’t make the British nation-state any the sweeter. Yes, the U.S. Constitution sets limits to the federal power with regard to the individual rights of its citizens but that is in the context of recognizing that the natural liberty of its citizens preceded the establishment of the nation-state.