I don't have the answers yet, but I have learned enough to be dangerous, and ask better questions..

From an op /ed in the NY Times by David Brooks this morning:

When Bush talks about the world he hopes to create, he talks first
about spreading freedom. What he's really talking about is a
decentralized world. Individuals would be free to live as they chose,
in their own nations, carving out their own destinies.

The
optimism built into this vision is that free people would be able to
live in basic harmony. There would not need to be any central authority
governing their interactions. Indeed, Bushian conservatives talk about
central global authorities like the U.N. the way they talk about
Washington - as places where venal elites gather to serve their own
interests.

When Kerry talks about the world he hopes to create,
he talks first about alliances and multilateral cooperation. He's
really talking about a crowded world. People from different nations
would gather to work out differences and manage problems.

The
optimism built into this vision is that nations will sometimes be able
to set aside their rivalries and narrow self-interests and work
cooperatively to thwart the sorts of global threats posed by Saddam
Hussein, or genocides like the one in Sudan. Kerryesque liberals are
concerned by the possibility that some nations will go off and behave
individualistically or, as they say, unilaterally.

Me here: I don't know about Kerry because I have yet to see him in action, but Bush's philosophy and actions seem in conflict. I appreciate a world of freedom, but a world run by America seems to be more of what's in the offing.

What do you think?