I am a grad student and doing research right now on the nature of Bush's foreign policy. In particular, I am looking at the influence of PNAC (Project for a New American Century -- scary stuff!) on the Bush administration and the attempt for world dominance / global hegemony. I know that sounds far-fetched, but it is the basic idea behind this preventive -- not be confused with "preemptive" -- war stategy.
My professor overseeing this research suggested I read Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival" that recently was in the news. I have only begun the book, but Chomsky made a point that really stuck with me. He claims (rightly, in my opinion) that the United States foreign policy is trying to establish not one superpower, but two. The first one, of course, is US global hegemony. The second one is surprising: world public opinion. He writes
Destroying hope is a critically important project. . . Th[is] is a matter that the second superpower, world public opinion, should make every effort to understand if it hopes to escape the containment to which it is subjected and to take seriously the ideals of justice and freedom that come easily to the lips but are harder to defend and advance.
My point is this: world pubic opinion is a fairly vague idea. Where could people, around the country and world, meet to discuss the nature of the United States foreign policies? It would have to be a place that encourages action and provides information. This all seems very unlikely. . . Wait, don't blogs contribute to these things?! If Chomsky is correct, the Daily Kos (and other blogs) have far more power than we realize! This could explain one of the reasons that the right-wingers are nervous about blogs and try to discredit them. They recognize the power we hold in expressing our opinions, debating about politics, and connecting with other like-minded people.
What do you think -- am I on to something here?