Quoting The Prince doesn't constitute an endorsement of aristocracy. I'm merely quoting Machiavelli on his assessment of human nature.

There should be a version of Godwin's law that says whenever representative democracies and their relationships are being discussed, the first person to mention Machiavelli in a positive way loses the argument.

Because, of course, Japan, the UK, Canada and all the other nations who have been lauded for joining Bush's failed occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan did so only out of fear, right?

And come to think of it, the problem with fear is that, at the first sign of weakness, your fearful allies turn on you - as happened with the Soviet satellites as the great bear slumped - or become double-agents as has happened with Pakistan's "joining" the effort to deal with Islamist extremist terrorism.

If you want a far better explanation of why America presents an ever-changing foreign policy face to the world, then Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye has it right - not a failed renaissance politico.

Anyway, since when did those the American public elected to work for them become Princes? The Founders, I hope and believe, would prefer us all to strive to remember that A Man's A Man For All That.

You see yonder fellow called 'a lord,'
Who struts, and stares, and all that?
Though hundreds worship at his word,
He is but a dolt for all that.
For all that, and all that,
His ribboned, star, and all that,
The man of independent mind,
He looks and laughs at all that.

Regards, C

Loved? No, I don't think that's necessary. But we need to be respected, which we no longer are.

Feared? Well, fear is an interesting thing. Fear could say, drive a dictator or two to conclude that they need to have nukes to protect them from America. Oh wait, that's already happening.