With regard to the first point, it seems that the elite of the western world and most certainly within the United States, has lost faith in what their own project is. Rather than the rest of the world losing faith necessarily in the standard of a ‘universal’ or exceptional ‘Americanism’, perhaps it is the leaders of America that are suffering from an existential crisis. No longer able to motivate the American project in terms of opposition to some Soviet threat, with the contesting ideas of Left and Right departed the political stage, what is left is TINA (There Is No Alternative) to the market, with very little inspiration. Worse, perhaps, a sense of anxiety and fear pervades the very culture in which we operate that presents the human project as almost pathological: humans are ‘mad, bad and dangerous’ and somewhat out of control.

The ‘culture wars’ in the US saw a protracted debate around the themes of western identity and the legacy of the enlightenment, with ‘Dead White Males’ being presented as responsible for much of the unsavoury activities of the colonial and imperial periods. However, alongside this, the ascendancy of post modernism and a broader unease with reason meant that many of the certainties that previous rulers could count on have disappeared. This has had significant ramifications for the ability to motivate the idea of ‘America’ both domestically and internationally.

While some agreed with the points Todd made with regard to the Middle East and emerging stability – contrary to populist presentations of an out of control central Asian region – the very nature of western disorientation often seems to lead to more problems than it solves. The ‘empty proceduralism’ which policy devoid of political intent, just managerial pragmatism can often be just as destructive (or perhaps, at times, more so) than a specific campaign of militarism with objectives and vision.

In paraphrasing Nietzsche towards the end of the book on (p.197) Todd suggests that we can ‘wrest ourselves from the hold of ideology, the illusion of the moment, and the media’s permanent false alarm.’ However, while Todd has attempted to dissect the anti American sentiments prevalent within the anti globalisation ‘discourse,’ he has missed the central point that the problem seems not so much to be needing to renounce old ideologies, but the fact that people generally have given up on the idea that politics can be a solution to the problems of the people. As one Salon member noted, the exiting of the people from the political stage has made it largely irrelevant. In effect that means suspending history, until we have decided that we can make it again.

Is there a ‘culture of corruption’ in politics and business?

The context to our discussion was the current public focus on scandals and corruption. In business, we see the Enron trial, criticisms of excessive executive pay and oil executives blamed for extortionate gas prices. In politics, there are the Abramoff and DeLay cases, as well as charges of cronyism (eg, the appointment of Michael Brown at FEMA) and other scandals (eg, the Valerie Plame case). In both the business and political spheres, critics refer to corruption as being “endemic”, “systemic” and “unprecedented”.

There is also a broadening of the discussion. The Democrats, in fact, have popularized the phrase “culture of corruption”, hoping to link both the recent Bush scandals with a wider sense that business-political ties have grown too incestuous under the current administration. There are also those who say that the problem is society-wide: for example, David Callahan’s book, The Cheating Culture, claims that the problems in business and politics are part of a wider problem of cheating in all areas of social life, including students cheating on SATs and baseball players using steroids. The discussion has moved beyond questions of institutional arrangements to challenge the integrity of the participants in the process. So, instead of traditional arguments that business is pursuing the narrow pursuit of profit, or politicians are engaging in partisan politics (or representing business at the expense of the electorate), there is a debate about the moral character of the people involved.

Most believe corruption is a serious and widespread problem, and there isn’t a simple left/right divide on the issue. In fact, if you ask someone “is there a culture of corruption?”, they are most likely to say “yes, next question.” As mentioned, Democrats are hoping to seize on this opportunistically, with the aim of bringing the Bush administration down (some even talk of bringing impeachment charges if the Democrats do well in the November congressional elections). But Republicans are worried about this too – witness Matthew Continetti’s book just published, The K Street Gang. There is a consensus that much needs to change – from legislation to ethical training.

• Is the extent of corruption exaggerated? How does it compare with earlier periods? Are the Bush administration’s ties with business and money exceptional? Are there more careerist, unprincipled politicians today?

• Does the Bush administration have an ideological vision? And/or a narrow, self-serving agenda? If the Republicans are in bed with the lobbyists, what results do they have to show for it?

• If there has been an over-reaction to corruption cases, why? Is it simply because certain proponents of the idea of a “culture of corruption”, such as the Democrats, are pushing the idea in the hope of benefiting electorally? Or is there a broader climate of suspicion of individual motives that leads to the notion resonating among the public?

• Will the anti-corruption sentiment benefit the Democrats, or will both parties be blamed?

• Will the proposed reforms bring greater or less democracy? Is the public passive stand-bys when governments are overthrown by impeachment, courts of law, or other forms of “crown intrigue”?

• Even if corruption is not as bad as in the past, if the current level is seen as intolerable, many believe something should be done. If so, what can be done?