Should the United States lead the world?

No, if you are the managing editor of the Washington Post. In this interview with China's People's Daily, Phillip Bennett was discussing President Bush's stated goal of promoting democracy in the world, when he was asked, "In such sense, do you think America should be the leader of the world?" Bennett's response was as follows:

"No, I don't think US should be the leader of the world. My job is helping my readers trying to understand what is happening now. What is happening now is very difficult to understand. The world is very complex. There are various complex forces occurring in it. I don't think you can imagine a world where one country or one group of people could lead everybody else. I can't imagine that could happen. I also think it is unhealthy to have one country as the leader of the world. People in other countries don't want to be led by foreign countries. They may want to have good relations with it or they may want to share with what is good in that country.

"That is also a sort of colonial question. The world has gone through colonialism and imperialism. We have seen the danger and shortcomings of those systems. If we are heading into another period of imperialism where the US thinks itself as the leader of the area and its interest should prevail over all other interests of its neighbors and others, then I think the world will be in an unhappy period."

Bennett has confused the concepts of leading and ruling, and for this reason he is wrong. In reviewing these definitions for lead, I can't see any in which I believe that if the United States were playing that role, it would be a bad thing. "Show the way by going in advance," "guide or direct in a course," or "to play a principal or guiding role in" -- none of these seem to be imperialistic in nature, but instead demonstrate that leading is merely setting an example.

Colonialism, by contrast, is defined as "a policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies," and imperialism has much the same meaning. These words essentially mean to rule, defined as "governing power or its possession or use; authority." What Bennett is referring to with his remarks about imperialism is extending U.S. governing authority into other countries, which, as I understand it, has never been the stated goal of the administration.

It is possible that Bennett merely has used poor syntax, or that the interview has lost something in the translation. Leaving aside that much room for the benefit of a doubt, it is shocking, but not surprising, to hear the managing editor of arguably the nation's second-most influential newspaper making disparaging remarks about the ability of the United States to lead in the world. Geopolitics being what it is, some nation will lead, and others will follow. The United States, as the oldest and longest-functioning democratic republic in the world, has quite a bit to contribute to the international conversation on the best way for a country to function. Whether he will admit it or not, the United States does possess some moral authority, although the concept of morality is nebulous to modern liberals. To automatically equate leading with ruling, though, is a stretch Bennett was wrong to make.

I will not hold my breath waiting for the Washington Post editorial page to criticize the United States Supreme Court for its use of foreign laws to interpret the American Constitution. In spite of Bennett's professed desire for countries to be free from foreign influences, I think it is safe to say that this sentiment runs only away from the U.S., and never comes into play when the foreign systems are being used to influence the U.S. Constitution. That portion of the recent death penalty opinion was completely ignored in the paper's editorial on the decision. His candor only goes so far.

Hat tip: Drudge.