Man I'm pessimistic today.

When the history of the decline of the American Republic is finally written, perhaps in fifty years, George W. Bush will figure heavily, but he will not be an origin. Bush the Second will be a symptom of the loss of the civic ideal that will be traced back at least to Vietnam. He will stand as a symbol of mean-spirited and short-sighted selfishness on the part of the ruling class, heading an administration based on Cold Warriors who had no idea how to react to realities that had been ascending in the world since the collapse of the European colonial system.

The Bush II regime is obviously fertile ground for mining errors -- we could start with the neocons' love of gunboat diplomacy -- but Clinton's was also replete with evidence that we'd faltered as a society: it signaled a further retreat from the Democrats' supposed commitment to the working class and an acceptance of the Right's terms of debate -- welfare is bad (or for that matter, that welfare is a drain on our economy), universal health care is bad, regulation is bad, outsourcing is more efficient. All myths that fail to live up to scrutiny. And even at the heart of Clinton's administration, the underlying logic was that if we were frustrated, we could always lob a few cruise missles in the general direction of the thorn in our side.

Us v. Them, East v. West, The West v. Al Qaeda, etc. are all very convenient paradigms to simplify geopolitical events, but they're hollow. They cannot account for localized motivations or third (or more) terms; hence, the Iraq War "planners" -- a term I use very loosely -- could see only Saddam the Tyrant v. USA the liberator. They couldn't conceive of USA the Occupier v. Independent Iraq. They couldn't conceive of Saddam the Crafty Manipulator v. The Fractious Iraqi Society. It's a simple world when all you see is black and white; unfortunately, it's a very limited world.

However damaging all these political missteps may be, the undermining of the American Republic will not be laid at the doorstep of Bush II's warmongering. When the history is written, perhaps with China occupying the position of ascendant superpower, studies of Wal Mart, Nike, etc. will play important parts in understanding how the United States fell from prominence. Just as these corporations couldn't care less if their products were produced under prison/slave/child labor so long as they were produced as cheaply as possible, they also will not care less who purchases their products, so long as a market remains for them. In the old days, if you lost the support of the Church or the military, your regime faltered. Today, if you lose the support of the corporations, your regime falters.

Or, to quote Mr. Dawes, Sr., from Mary Poppins, "When stand the Banks of England...England stands. When fall the Banks of England...England falls." None of this really is new.