Bush’s american empire has gone way off track By Ron Ferguson

America confuses me. I spent a year in the States, studying at Duke University, North Carolina, and loved it. At the end of the studies, my wife and I drove from coast to coast, from North Carolina to California, then all the way up the west coast to Oregon.

The scenery was wonderful, so varied. The people we kept meeting were quite unlike the stereotypes of American people so prevalent in this country. By and large, we found the Americans we met to be generous and curious. That has also been true of Americans we have met in this country.

This was confirmed again on a six-week trip to the States three years ago. The view that the "Yanks" are boorish and loud and ignorant – held usually by people who have never been to America and are basing their prejudices on meeting one or two tourists – is a travesty. It is an unjustifiable generalisation.

Americans are natural friends of the Brits. We share a love of freedom and democracy, however imperfectly we live these things ourselves. There are so many values we hold in common.

So what is my confusion, then? Simply this: how can a country with so many decent and humane people elect a president who acts with such ar­rogant disregard for the impact of his actions? Out of the vast number of able people living in the United States of America, how come the best the Republican party could come up with was George W. Bush?

Clearly, the president speaks for a lot of people, otherwise he wouldn't have been re-elected. Nor is he simply the daft man that he is often made out to be. What concerns me is his view of the world, one which doesn't square with so many Americans I have met.

It is not only me who is confused; the American body politic is confused and confusing.

How can we get to the core of the constellation of issues facing America? The prescient words of one of her greatest theologians, Reinhold Niebuhr, shed a great deal of light on the current situation.

In his prophetic book The Irony of American History, published in 1952, Dr Niebuhr predicted that the winner of the cold war would inevitably "face the imperial problem of using power in global terms, but from one particular centre of authority, so dominant and unchallenged that its world rule would almost certainly violate basic standards of justice".

Niebuhr was afraid that if America became that dominant nation, it would not recognise its own injustices toward others, for its good intentions in world affairs would be so self-evident.

He went on: "We find it almost as difficult as the communists to believe that anyone could think ill of us, since we are as persuaded as the communists that our society is so essentially virtuous that only malice could prompt criticism of any of our actions."

There is bewilderment in America over the fact that so many people perceive the US as other than benevolent. Niebuhr has been proved right. For many Americans, the hostility is attributed simply to jealousy.

There is undoubtedly a great deal of truth in this. Is it really so surprising that, in such an ill-divided world, a country which flaunts such wealth is resented? Or that the most heavily armed superpower the world has ever seen is feared more than loved?

The core issue which Rein-hold Niebuhr identified has to do with empire. America's dominant and unchallenged position as the only superpower in town is bound to lead to injustices unless reined in by conscience.

George W. Bush is the wrong leader at the wrong time. He and his more gung-ho acolytes in government see the world in such simplistic terms that they do not even understand the damage they are doing.

Do' you remember the arrogance of Dubya when he taunted the Iraqi resistance leaders, inviting them to "come on"? This is the language of the playground or the Wild West.

Recently, Newt Gingrich, a senior Republican politician, said that a new world war could begin in the Middle East, then added: "Bring it on."

It is hard to believe the crass-ness of this stuff. It is only fair to say that many Americans are simply appalled by this. They are wondering if their emperor's clothes have been purchased in a moral second-hand shop. Has the American Revolution really come to this?

And has Tony Blair really come to this? Repeatedly, people in America said to me that while they had little confidence in their president's grasp of the world, they thought the British prime minister was "smart".

In fact, many had been persuaded to support the war in Iraq by Mr Blair's passionate convictions.

Now, as more and more of the story unravels, they are not so sure. Tony Blair is the ally Bush wants, but not the one he needs. While the American public admires Tony Blair's loyalty, they are now asking questions about his judgment.

Recent events in Lebanon confirm the feeling that Mr. Blair is too close to Mr. Bush. I have never been Margaret Thatcher's greatest fan, but while she had a close relationship with Ronald Reagan, she didn't hesitate to tell him what she thought. She was also scornful of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq.

Can you imagine Winston Churchill fawning over George Bush? An alliance between friends necessitates the telling of uncomfortable truths. There is no sense that this is what is happening in the "special relationship" right now.

Professor Iain Torrance, formerly a professor at Aberdeen University and now president of Princeton Seminary in New Jersey, famously took the American government to task when he was Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

"As the most powerful nation in the world, the United States has nothing to fear militarily," he said. "However, your country's enviable reputation as a champion of freedom and upholder of standards of decency is now severely on the line. Your aggressive self-legitimisation undermines respect."

Niebuhr had it right. The American Revolution was a great and energising model of freedom for the world. But the American empire is a different story.

If America wants to get back on freedom's track, it will have to learn to love its Niebuhr as itself.

The Times