'World representation without inhalation!'

"No taxation without representation." Every American schoolchild learns this simple slogan to encapsulate the main ideological driving force behind the American Revolution. Beyond the monetary issue brought up by "taxation" — a rallying point for populist anger then as now — the broader point was that if people were to be compelled by a law, they should have some say in that law's creation, in the memorable case summed up by the slogan, tax law. This notion that a polity must have the "consent of the governed" was revolutionary.

And so the notion spread, slowly, then not so slowly, until the states formed in the image of that ideal now are the majority of the nations of the world. And yet even as this paradigm has been fruitful and multiplied, the assumptions that underlie it have drastically eroded. The nation-state was envisaged as a self-contained entity whose citizens shared a common history and values. The dealings of one nation (both the state and the people) with another were limited principally to trade and issues of war and peace. But as we all know, that era is long since passed, as we live in the much-vaunted age of globalization. The oft-repeated litany of manifestations of our interconnected world are well known to us all: the Internet, the relative ease of world travel, customer service calls that go to Hyderabad, India, etc.

These changes, however, have led to a crisis in the system. Today a leader, particularly a leader in the West, and especially of the United States, has enormous power over individuals thousands of miles away, sometimes more than their own leaders. One can almost hear the new slogans in the minds of much of the citizenry of the world, "No International Monetary Fund recommendation without representation!" "No genetic modification without representation!" "No U.S. invasion without representation!"

I think this helps explain the tremendous surge in anti-Americanism over the past few years (not just after 9/11). People feel that America has so much power over them, yet they have no say in who leads America, or her policies. These feelings were largely subsumed by the context of the Cold War, when the American president was also often known as the "leader of the free world," a term you don't hear much anymore (and one I couldn't imagine a non-American saying about President Bush). Bill Clinton's personal charm and skill at public diplomacy eased the growing tensions in the decade after the Cold War.

George W. Bush's style, however, has been disastrously received around the world. Europeans viscerally dislike him, and the Middle East loathes him; this president who spices his speeches with Spanish received positive ratings from only 12 percent of Latin Americans (in Brazil an astounding 98 percent were negative on our 'presidente!'). Asia and Africa are not much different. Let me be clear about my intentions here, I am trying to be apolitical about this. These poll ratings in themselves do not mean Bush's policies were or are wrong; frankly it wouldn't surprise me at all if a poll of world opinion found a strong majority would be delighted if Israel sunk into the ocean tomorrow, so there's no law that majority opinion is just. They do however suggest that something in U.S. public diplomacy and/or policy ought to be changed. The days are long gone when a nation could simply sent its witty and urbane ambassador to soothe nerves and whisper sweet nothings to foreign capitals. Or at least they are long gone for America. Now a speech given by President Bush to a Boy Scout meeting might be beamed across the world, the global media ready to pounce on every verbal gaffe or controversial remark.

Among an American president's many hats, this one has become tremendously more important in recent years: communicator-in-chief. Despite those who credit Bush's "average Joe" style and delivery, this clearly has played horribly on the world stage, and to America's detriment. Bush and his team came to Washington evoking a corporate mentality to their administration, so let us apply the corporate analogy. When a CEO becomes a public relations liability, regardless of the merits of his performance, he usually gets the boot. After the Jayson Blair scandal at The New York Times, Executive Editor Howell Raines was forced to resign because his association with the affair had become a liability for the paper's credibility. No, I'm not calling for Bush's impeachment because the world doesn't like him, but I do think that this is a problem that has to be dealt with. When the world dislikes us as much as it does now, we have no reservoir of goodwill with which to lead and everything that we try to do — from the War on Terror to global trade — becomes that much more difficult. And patriotic Americans, whether Bush's Democratic opponents, his fellow Republicans, or anyone else, should make this an important issue in the 2004 campaign.

How can the world have its concerns and interests addressed in U.S. policies that affect them when they can't participate in the U.S. electoral process? And please don't say the United Nations is the answer, because although it certainly has its merits, that august institution has proven to have its share of major flaws (Libya recently chaired the Human Rights Committee for god's sake!) and few Americans want it to become a world government. Perhaps the solution that would most quickly make the world happy: Bring back Bill Clinton. I can already see the slogan: "World Representation With No Inhalation."

Matthew Schonfield is a Wilson School major from Los Angeles, Calif.