Just before the item gets too old

A snapshot of how the world views the US is found in the January 24 New York Times description of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland (which - grumble - I keep wanting to call Davros).

[C]ompared with one year ago, when the forum became a bitter joust between America and opponents of war in Iraq, some of those skeptics and foes have begun to acquiesce in Washington's exercise of power, or at least to acknowledge that this new world order would not simply be wished away....

But even now, many critics of the United States say that while some of the rawest emotions may have dissipated, many basic perceptions of the Bush administration as brusquely disregarding the rest of the world remain, albeit in a muted way.

"We may be getting used to the idea" of America's exclusive hold on global power, said Nabil Shaath, the foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority. "But that doesn't mean we change our views." ...

But in the corridors and lounges of the Congress Center, there was a sense among some that opposition to the perceived American juggernaut had given way to other calculations, suggesting that beyond the forum, people had begun to adjust to the realities of American power.

So reluctant acquiescence in at atmosphere of, the Times also says, "profound mistrust" and a "sense of impotence." Perhaps the best summary came near the end of the article:

Of course, during last year's conference, the United States and Britain had not yet invaded Iraq and both countries had embarked on a campaign to broaden their coalition against Saddam Hussein.

"Last year they were bidding for moral authority," said Andrew Williams, a British investor. This year, he said, "I don't think the United States comes across with any sense of moral authority."

We have instead offered the arrogance of the selfish employment of naked power.

All of which would seem to place the burden even more on us here at home to change our nation's ways and not be intimidated into silence.

I may be the only lefty blogger who hasn't devoted a lot of energy to sizing up and chasing down the Democratic primaries. I don't have a horse in that race. (Well, actually, I do, or at least I have a horse I like better than the rest, but Dennis Kucinich is not going to be the nominee, is he?) I'm among the 47% that a Newsweek poll reported "strongly" want Bush out, and that will figure in my thinking through election day. (Full disclosure: I will probably wind up voting for some independent candidate, depending which of them is on the ballot; I live in Massachusetts, which I really really doubt will be a contested state. And I expect to be voting for Greens for local offices.) But what we can't forget is that getting Bush out of office (and I think any one of the major Dem contenders has a real shot at doing that; with nearly half the electorate strongly committed against your opponent, how can you not have at least that?) is not the end of our work but the start of it.

Twice in recent decades, first with Jimmy Carter and then with Bill Clinton, we lulled ourselves to sleep with the lullaby that there was a reasonably liberal - or at least a reasonable facsimile of a liberal - Democrat in the White House. Both times we wound up getting horsewhipped and backstabbed as protecting their right flank proved more of a concern than responding to a dozing left. We can't let that happen a third time. Each time we have, we've slipped a little further into the hole of powerlessness and marginalization. Three strikes may well be out.