I don't have much of a chance to listen to Michael Savage and his style is too over-the-top for me, but the more I listen to the leftists who're in the media and academia and on blogs, the more I agree with him that liberalism is a mental disorder.

The United States is a wealthy and powerful nation. That can't be disputed. The principles upon which the nation is built are widely respected as well. Your question pits the United States contributions against other nations. I think that is also an easy answer. The United States has had a much bigger influence than most, possibly more than all. But to be reasonable, there needs to be another way of looking at this question, irrespective of political perspective. The United States is roughly 5% of the world's population, and consumes 25% of the world's resources. Our positive contributions have a larger impact just as our negative behavior is disproportionately large. The question is, is it in balance. Does our benefit balance our harm. And further, should we not provide more or different benefit given our fortunate position. The repair of our national image around the world is absolutely necessary. The last 8 years have been horrendous, and many things done in the last 60 years are questionable. Our standard is to be compared against ourselves. That comes with the good fortune of being us.

Good post, Bill.

But I still don't get the negative influence of the US and even less, the positive influence of countries who now presume to question our moral superiority.

GordonO, you link credibility with the U.S. being a force for good during its history. I entirely agree that there's a strong connection here. Further, it seems reasonable that U.S. foreign policy is facilitated by its credibility. Now, I don't know of any measures of credibility, but favorability is one plausible surrogate. It doesn't completely account for credibility, but certainly it can't be discounted--how effective can the U.S. be in the world if our allies hold unfavorable views of us? And yet this is the state we find ourselves in.

The survey results I've linked to show that for various countries throughout the world, favorable views of the U.S. in 1999/2000 were largely in the 60% to 80% positive range; in 2008 most of these had dropped by 20 points or more. This can't have made it easier for us to work with our allies; at least, the evidence during the Bush years is against it.

Now, this is a straightforward line of reasoning, and I'm sure you're aware of the data. It's not stupid. It's something that fits into a rational view of the world.

Polls are a reflection of public opinion. Any politician who formulates policy on the basis of polls is free of principles. That's what made the Bush Presidency a great success. I hope we both live long enough to observe that verification.

Again, my staff and I are burdened with deleting posts from Greg Thomas and Aaron Rury. What does it take for these dunces to understand that I will not publish on my threads posts which are, in turn, illiterate, intemperate, and/or ignorant? Find a nearby sandbox, fellas. They're in ample supply.

Polls are a reflection of public opinion.

By dismissing my response, you're in the position of arguing that credibility is not a reflection of public opinion. Odd. But I do appreciate the irony of your praise for George W. Bush, in the context of American credibility.

B.O. gave Rahm Emmanuel complete control over the census on Friday afternoon...took it away from commerce to give it to a political operative...am wondering what repercussions that has?

The census thing: the latest, but probably not the last, indication of Obamaistic hubris. Thanks for the comment.

Well... if I may speak as a non-American (well, 1/4 American if you like): the first point I would make is that I would agree with anyone who said that outside perceptions of "credibility" are not the primary issues that should motivate your leaders.

That said, the world does rely on America to lead, and hopes America will always stand up for what is right: freedom, democracy, truth, etc. I hear America criticised most days, but I think this is the burden of leadership (to the extent that it is a burden at all). You probably wouldn't criticise Obama much if he were your next-door neighbour, but since he's your leader his flaws stand out. Well, the world at large fundamentally admires the American experiment and the American form of democracy and remembers that America has done much of the work of saving the world at least once. But since America is a leader, her flaws do stand out. It was awful watching ignorance and fear win out again and again over the last few years. It was sad to watch the hasty invasion of Iraq, predicated on lies about WMDs, when weapons inspectors were clearly and explicitly saying they just needed a few more months. (I should add that, as an American ally, we joined America there.)

I don't think my opinion of America should influence President Obama, or cause you to lose any sleep, but on the other hand, if you are interested, then I will tell you that I would be very happy to see the American beacon shining from a little higher up the hill, and closer to the ideals that make it a unique and important element of human history. To me, it makes a big difference to know that there is an example of a way of life that is resistant to corruption and ignorance, and a type of nation that strives to deliver equal justice for all and does not steer into thuggery, nepotism, mere expediency, totalitarianism, and the other dark alleys that governments have always been prone to.

And on the specific concept of credibility: nothing's perfect, but there was a time when, at least in a general sense, if America said something, the world could assume that it was probably true. I know that you defend Bush to a degree that I will never really be able to fathom, but even allowing for that you'd have to agree that the simple truth took a back seat more under the Bush adminstration than ever before. Despite subsequent revision, it was explicit that the invasion of Iraq was because of WMDs, even though those WMDs did not in fact exist and evidence was distorted. But leave a hot button like that aside and you still have the problem that the administration was wholly anti-science. Nothing said by the US government, for a while there, was apolitically honest. Change that and America will begin to regain her credibility. Yes, in the eyes of the world. But also, surely, in her own eyes..?

Bill: "The United States is roughly 5% of the world's population, and consumes 25% of the world's resources."

I read this a lot and I don't fully understand the point behind it. I would normally expect consumption of resources to be matched to productivity, not to population. The US is unusually productive therefore consumes at an unusual level. I am sure there could be less waste - as there could be anywhere - but I am not sure that a comparison of raw per-capita levels of resource consumption makes a lot of sense.

Gordon: "The census thing: the latest, but probably not the last, indication of Obamaistic hubris."

To be fair, what is hubris for you or me may not be hubris in an elected President! It is not presumptuous for the head of the executive arm of government to head the executive arm of government.

Well said, Jason. I agree with almost all you say, specifically the inadvisability of the Iraq invasion and Bush's "softness" on certain, but not all, areas of science.

I particularly appreciate your expression of the high esteem in which America has been held historically. I would add that this was partly based on America's economic power, and the waning of that has in an important way paralled the loss in our "popularity" abroad.

However, looking ahead I am hardly hopeful. Obama's economic policies as encapsulated in the Big Pig are misguided at best and potentially disastrous at worst. His yielding to the most radical elements of his party in dismantling protections that kept us safe for more then seven years without any loss of civil liberties to anyone I know (I might add I know very few terrorists), and his miserable and irrational choices for his new administration (Daschle, non, Geithner, si) all to me are sympomatic of his political inexperience and vulnerability to pressures of political hacks like Pelosi and Reid.

The census thing was really not merely exercising his executive power. It was transferring an important function traditionally lodged in the Commerce Department to the White House where he could keep a closer eye on it. Why?

Thanks for your comment.

On the census, I have no idea. I don't want to embarrass myself but the topic just made me think of that West Wing episode where Toby and Mandy were trying to modernise the census-taking process.

Correct me if I'm wrong but have the last three censuses been conducted under Republican administration? If so I can imagine why the new administration might want to do more than just let nature take its course.

From what I can see the only aspects of the census that aren't really matters of consensus are (a) a modest impact of some statistical methods on congressional representation and (b) whether or not (and how) to count gay marriages. Is there anything else that could be vulnerable to political interference?

Jason Korke, the statement about consumption versus population is not a moral judgement on my part. I dont believe in them, and they are most certainly not appropriate in this context. What it does mean is, within a closed system, consuming 5 times as much as average is bound to generate hostility or animosity. Again, I am not saying it should. I have lived in this country my whole life. I am not separating myself from it. I am saying, within the context of what others think or feel around the world, it is reasonable that they some would be rubbed the wrong way.

I hear you Bill and appreciate your point. And it's true, that this exact criticism is directed at America from all around the world. I just feel that those levelling that criticism are missing a basic point, which is that most human activities consume more resources as they become more productive, more or less in direct proportion.