Here's a "philosopher" who thinks that Bush is a new Nero, and that the US is a "pathocracy" and "theocracy." Also, anyone who doesn't see this as clearly as he does is nuts.

I think he's projecting, myself.

1. His name is Francois.

2. "the two breasts of the Empire" ?!?

3. He calls for a return of Freud.

He's French. Need one say more?

Another essay that makes me wonder what the "concerned opposition" would be saying if it were "President Al Gore" doing and saying *exactly* the same things.

Clinton was more Neroish than Mr. Bush will ever be. Mr. Bush seeks a world wide Pax Americanus.

Clinton fiddled while his wife burned.

Either he's using Washington Post proofreaders, or 2,5000 years is part of some new, defiant metric calender.

All those people who keep comparing the US to Ancient Rome need to study their history a little more-- if anything, our present time resembles the period just after the end of the Punic Wars and the destruction of Carthage, when the Roman Republic became the unchallenged and unchallengable master of the Mediterranean world. What the US needs to do is not make the same mistakes Rome made which lead to the Civil Wars and the Imperium.

Then again, these are usually the same people who keep predicting quagmires and brutal Afghan winters, and dire consequences if treaties aren't ratified. They think that we're so stupid that we will repeat the mistakes of the past, both our own and of others. I think the psychic hotlines have a better record of accurate predictions.

He's French. Need one say more?

Wasn't that implicit in my first point? :)

With regard to the question posed above about whether "President Al Gore" would face the same kind of carping, you've located another example of what I call Zero-Issue Politics: choosing to support or oppose some policy, not on the basis of its merits, but because of who else is for or against it. It's the death knell for constructive political discourse, but I have no idea how to counter it.