I suppose that the gratuitous lumping of POVs into stereotypes of the author's persuasion - is de rigeur in journalism. This doesn't make it any more palatable or redound to the author's credit.

Actually I like the style of the guy he linked-to, Punnuru - a bit better. He likes neoconservative as a label for those ~ Thinking Right but a little muddled for his taste. And.. it's all about taste ain't it?

Still and all - both write Machiavellian in spirit. Both subsume the fact of American hegemony / we be the Billy Gates of World $ Accumulation / accepting that as a Given. And attribute to our 'foes' - mere envy of us; simultaneously fear of our unique arsenal of both $ + Nukes = that ol Power .. which all know --> corrupts. Even we know *that* while wielding it: we just don't talk about that. That would be unMurican, I think it goes without saying. It's the 500# Gorilla on the sofa.

Interesting point re the theme: understanding. Simplest to say - I disagree with that connotation (and also the many gratuitous references to er realism), a word ranking right up there with Truth.. as bound to be a Red Herring. (A classic blab-word, in the lexicon of Stuart Chase's little masterpiece on misuse of language)

Real (! there, I did it too) understanding presupposes a level of maturity which I do not believe the species has achieved; that is - there are limits to the capacity of 'understanding', in the immature. Overlaid upon a tapestry of (imagined) Vital National Interest\ufffd -- this word too is a meaningless frill of the 'justifying behavior' class.

I will agree though - within above constraints on us and on our use of language, such as we are -- it IS silly to mouth such banal ideas as, "if we just Understood each other, all would be well". This is actually True! {ugh} but.. not at our current level of awareness - thus it is ever a false hope as 'advertised'. So I think he's Right (well he sure is) but also Correct - yet still wrong, especially about reality. If that makes any sense ;-)



Ashton