Maybe the term American Leadership should have been left out of the opening paragraph for it sounds too much like the American Way, if the illegal occupation of Iraq means part of it, coupled with the Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice's tendency to jump into global controversies ahead of the United Nations, sounds more like the old British colonialist 19th century imperialist order than an attempt at true global democracy?

The author writes:
".... rise of new fundamentalisms, whether they revolve around tribalism in parts of Africa, theology in the Middle East, politics in the Balkans, or zealotry somewhere else....".

There is no hint or acknowledgement re the possibility that we in the dreadfully sane "West" have in one way or another, through our centuries long imperialistic mis-adventure, been a causative player in all of this chaos and cultural dis-integration.

And are still doing so---perhaps even more so.

Or that the USA is currently "ruled" by essentially psychotic fundamentalist ideological and theological zealots.

Of course the West has also established mechanisms and systems which can (potentially) enable and foster the emergence of some kind of collective sanity.

But even that WILL require profound changes in our attitudes and actions too.

Ho Hum

" >> Or that the USA is currently "ruled" by essentially psychotic fundamentalist ideological and theological zealots."

Sounds like you weren't wearing your metal colander on your head when the aliens teleported your brain away. Should have been more careful.

But really. If Bush is psychotic what does that make Ahmedinejhad who visits an imaginary man hiding in a well. Or Kim Jong Il's with his cult of personality?

If Bush is a theological zealot, what words due you have left to describe the Wahabists who dominate Saudi or the Deobandis of the Taliban? Or the Pan Islamists of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Its typical of the soft left to use inflamatory language as part of their propoganda. But to go so far over the top is indicative of the complete and acute loss of perspective that the haters of the US have contracted. Unfortunately it affects even the seemingly sane and educated left.

What was the point of this article? Other than Russell getting it all off his chest, that is?

I stand by my phrase re the psychotic crazies in Washington.
Such psychotic crazies, wherever they are geographically and culturally, and their fundamentalist "certainities" have ALL helped to create the situation described in this reference.

1. http://www.ispeace723.org/realityhumanity2.html

In recent essays the author has pointed that the current world crisis has been created by old time (deeply) psychotic "religionists" and benighted scientific materialists and that if the current momentum(s) continue it is bye-bye to Earthkind.

Imagine that. An entire article on the challenges of the future and not a word on oil, which reached a new record high price yesterday. No acknowledgement that the era of cheap and abundant energy looks to be drawing to a close. Russell Trood can't be much of a prognosticator if he hasn't factored that one in.

Oh dear Paul L., perhaps you might read the following article, and then tell us how you'd describe the ideological mindsets described therein. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665600&en=890a96189e162076&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

My personal favorite is the un-named aide who criticised the reporter for being (no doubt you've read this before) '''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'''

Can't say I'm particularly fond of the lunatics in charge of Hamas et al. But Australia's most important strategic alliance is with the USA, not the Muslim Brotherhood...

Quite good article.

West power, now under American leadership, are great contributors of modern civilization, including science, technology and social order system.

On the other hand, west powers have moral debt by their initial expansion/(culture)genocide.

Moreover internal democratically elected govements usually pursue their maximum national interest by their power, this is dictatorship in international level. Emerging power and other force will inevitably challenge this dictatorship.

This dictatorship usually covered by pro democracy and human rights protection. The trick of Iraq democratization is easy to understand, while current manipulated Tiber riot and overwhelming pro Tibet propaganda is another trick which is not widely noticed.

Religious tolerance, culture tolerance and powers compromise are possible realistic solution. We will learn to tolerance and compromise by negotiation and possible small scale conflict.

Harmony of Human society and Natural society is a eternal topic. If there is no technical breakthrough in nuclear energy in the medium future, our current lift style is unsustainable. Social conflict and natural force will again bring balance between Human and Nature.

What a surprise that a left-winger like suskind would latch onto a bizarre quote from an "UNAMED" Bush aide and use it to colour the entire presidency. Seems Obama has exactly the same problem with his radical minister. Not every aide actually makes and defines policy, some are just gophers.

A democratic senator and a former Reagan advisor must be telling the truth. I mean their perceptions wouldn't be coloured by the upcoming election by any chance, would they?

John Mc Cain will follow on with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Try and tell me he's insane.

George Bush was never running the war in Iraq. That was Donald Rumsfelds job. I agree he made a mess of it

It is time for the Anglosphere to leave the diabolical United Nations and to set up our own body. Other nations could apply to join, and would be accepted only if they pass certain standards. Tinpot African fascists and Islamofascists lecturing on "human rights" would be hilarious if it were not so obscene.

Soft line never be a gift given by hardliner.

There are lots of Anglosphere organizations, but are unable to solve the global conflict. They also want to solve problem by overwhelming force, but failed.

Today, we can not afford large scale conflict between powers.

West power had a short time absolute dominant history in world history. But before they conquered the whole world, they failed to unite the whole Europe. There are intrinsic reason inside two World Wars.

There are a lot of languages spoken in relatively small Europe. This actually explain a lot.

The Anglosphere is in decline in Anglo Saxon countries and internationally. If you see the synthesis of population in USA you will find that Anglo Saxon are a small minority, back of Latinos (huge migration of Latin America) and very soon back of African Americans( high fertility of African Americans). In Australian Anglo Saxons are very close to lose the majority, if already they are not minority, and sure the time works against them.
Internationally USA is in high decline, the cost of the invasion in Iraq will create huge problems in USA. Already USA economy has problems, If you read the results from the last sumit of NATO in Romania you will see that, Germany and France blocked Ukraine and Georgia, while Greece Blocked FYROM,ignoring totally the Bush. As you can see the old good days for Anglosphere are disappeared very fast!
Instead of the guns, invasions, violation of the international law, it is time for Anglosphere to respect the International Criminal Court and line with the international community.
Let's leave the European Union to drive our world, they are more mature and responsible.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Perhaps all the West can claim is to have written much about how liberal it claim it is. It cannot claim to have created the traditional values that underpin true liberalism.

In his book titled "The End of History and the Last Man"
Francis Fukuyama claimed that Western Liberalism is as good as it gets. FF stated that;

"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."

If this is the best than we have a very long way to go to realize liberalism in the true sense. At what cost will this be and to whom?
As nation states were born from turmoil and wars so too will global transformation.

The cost of creating the West is largely ignored and I'm reminded by Ghandi's quip when asked about what he should of "Western civilisation".

He remarked that "it would be a good idea".

Oh how foolish of me Paul.L. If only I'd realised that Suskind was LEFT-WING. Of course, that immediately invalidates anything he has to say. Clearly his Pulitzer Prize was awarded by mistake (or perhaps the Pulitzer is one of those rewards for compliant members of the "soft left").

Rumsfeld made a "mess" of the war in Iraq? The US military thought 500,000 troops were needed in Iraq, whereas Rumsfeld thought this figure was a "product of old thinking and the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the military." Looks like Rumsfeld didn't much like the "reality-based community" either?

Dear oh dear oh dearie me! What a mess the Liberal Party is in!

I have been a Liberal voter for a few elections, but this article is depressing - not because the good Senator is wrong, but because he mouths nothing more than general platitudes about change. Yes, Senator, the world is changing! It has always done so, and it will always continue to do so! My platitude versus your platitude.

What Liberal thinking needs however are policies. How are we to to confront the Wahabbism and Salufism emanating from the oil-rich fiefdoms? (Iran, Saudi Arabia) How do we trade-off Australia's interest in wealth with our interest in liberty as China and India take their demographically rightful place in the world? (Tibet, Olympics) How do we maintain a social security net in our own economies in a globalised world where our unskilled compete against the unskilled from the states with excess labour and no social security system? (Underclass) How do we get our citizenry to accept a modicusm of responsibility commensurate with its almost unlimited demand for rights? (Civics)

We need more than platitudes, Senator. We need visionary policies.

A Symeonakis, it is interesting what you say about European political intellect, even though they did spawn Nazism.

I happened to be with a broken up heavy artillery command group of specialists waiting for discharge in late 1945.

While waiting we figured out whether we wished for the Americans running the world after WW2?

It was so surprising that so many of us favoured a future Pax Europa rather than what is now Pax Americana.

The main reason seemed to be that the US had to be forced into WW2 by the Japs, some wondering whether without the Jap intrusion how long us British and our allies would have been left to fight the Germans?

Of course, as Aussie Brits we did expect Britain to have a very strong role after Germany was knocked out, if it ever came without America becoming fully involved.

It is also so interesting that despite America playing top dog role in the finish, there seemed to be the feeling among us, that the Yanks as we called them, still had a lot to learn?

Maybe that is why many political philosophers would still prefer a Kantian Federation of Democratic Nations to run the world rather than one militarily all-powerful Pax Americana.

Liberalism is a complex word. Its meaning is tied in with the concept of a human being. As such, why call it just Western?

Regarding the causes of conflicts, it would appear that they originate in ethnic or religious differences.

Let us start thinking differently. What people really care about is when economic disadvantage is institutionalised within a system. As ex-president Clinton famously remarked, "it is the economy, stupid".

Istvan,

Of course there are many types of liberalism, but western society in general has been guided by principles that are accurately defined as "western liberalism". There is no intent to claim liberalism as a western only notion.

Since the age of enlightenment the west has traveled down a road which has been defined by liberal ideas. That is the western experience and hence the term "western liberalism".

PaulL.,

Let us not delude ourselves. If anything, Liberalism is a quest. We have gleaned a lot from every other cultures, and we certainly made lot of mistakes along the way. One of the strengths or characteristics of our culture is the ability to analyse and to synthesise knowledge. Without abandoning any of this process, it is important that we try to update our understanding of events, and not just think that what we already know, or our stance, is definitive.

I agree. I don't see how anything I said contradicted this.