How much better it would be if we could leave external relations in the hands of professionals.

Ah, the reign of the philosopher king. Another treasured undergraduate memory.

For me the phrase “philosopher-king” engenders thoughts of Shakespeare’s quasi-fictional Henry V — a perfect king who came to power through “force” (Bolingbroke’s usurpation) and “chance” (Falstaff being the unlikely educator of any king, let alone a great king).

That leads me to Federalist Paper #1 which asks whether good government can be achieved through sober reflection rather than “Force” and “Chance”

and that has led us to Bush 43 and Obama 44.

which may lead us yet again to tyranny.

It is indeed difficult for a democracy to field a rational and nimble foreign policy and yet I see no alternative but to try.

Perhaps one paleoconservative stance to be considered would be to discourage all private action by Americans in the sphere of foreign relations. No AIPAC, no Irish Northern Aid, none of it. Every four years we get to select a President who addresses his view of our vital interests. Voting up or down on the Presidential candidates is enough participation.

Another problem with hegemony is that it defuses interests so broadly that critical ones are difficult to distinguish from minor ones.

Long, long ago — as a U of C undergraduate — I was assigned to read Thucydides. As were we all.

According to my professor, one of the core lessons from Thucydides was “do not mistreat your allies” and yet it would seem 21st century America is repeating the same mistakes made by those ancient Athenians.

Of course, there is a single word that serves as a linchpin for all of this: hubris.

I love the formulation!! Here’s hoping “splendid isolation” becomes a buzz-phrase around the intertubes and eventually comes to penetrate the consciousness of the big players. It seems like a phrase with just the right combination of mockery and analytical power to make a difference to the debate.