Why do you think the actual level of worldwide politics is so low?
155454
easy answer:\n\nthe American people elected B.U.S.H.
536174
I do think we're slipping.  It's not really a bad thing.  I'd rather the USA be a good citizen of the world...not leader of the world.
299750
Maybe because we're the only country that has the advantages to lead the world. If a one-party country like China would control the world's economy I think we wouldn't enjoy the freedom we have. We're open minded and multi cultural and these are good advantages.
131018
Because we're a superpower and we do what we want rather than what the world wants us to do.  And we don't let other countries push us around.  Besides, we're a little more conservative than most of Western Europe.  Oh by the way, you forgot to mention we're responsible for the Crusades.
801284
if you cannot feel any difference in your country, elsewhere in the world it can be felt by the way the governments reacted. Everyone is happy that America will measure better its foreign policy before taking any radical action, like war. A single country cannot control a whole world.
151723
One could say that we are in WWIII right now, although most unlike WWI and WWII.  Seeing so many violent protests throughout the Muslim world over the cartoons of Mohammed published by Danish and other European newspapers, I can't help but think that the conflict between the Muslim world and the Western world has been escalating for centuries, and will soon erupt into a much larger scale conflict.  It's not about the war on terror, Bush trying to take over the world, Oil-rich capitatlists trying to manipulate the government, but an age old conflict of political ideology, religous beliefs, nationalistic pride, etc.\n\nBut if you refer to an all-out conventional/nuclear war between the most powerful countries of the world, i.e. America, Britain, France, India, Israel, vs. Russia, Iran, China, Pakistan; then my answer is no, thanks to globalization.  No matter how precarious relations between the world's most powerful and/or influential nations may be, most politicans will realize that such a large scale war is economically stupid, when even unsound peace is economically preferable.
880242
The entire world is run by only a few elites.\n\nEver heard of conglomeration? Vertical integration?
286660
It is like when one has to work in a group, in the real world. Often, no one elects a leader of the group, but an individual will still take charge so that the group will run smoothly.\n\nHistory has shown that there will always be a world leader, it just happens that the USA has stepped in to fill the gap for now, just as France, England, Rome, and others have before it. This will eventually change, for better or worse. So, I suppose the simplest answer to your question is "Nature."
1073727
It is not so much a case of the government we deserve as it is a case of getting the government we are too lazy to stop(in most cases) World wide governmental corruption, the western " Cult of Personality" and indolence all lead to this. With the way that any one running for office in the west is scrutinized, you must ask yourself what kind of person puts themselves and their families through it. The answer of course is egomanaical numbskulls that toe what ever party line they are told to toe. These are just talking heads anyway. Outside of the west it seems, largely, that it is the rule of the gun. Most of the current African leadership are little more that corrupt tribal chiefs and thugs interested only in their own enrichment. Sound cynical? Maybe, but take a really good look around.
338502
The leaders of the two countries get together and solv the problem without force.  If hat doesn't work they can duke it out on their own.  If thing opperated like that I bet there would be fewer wars.  It's been a long time since world leaders have been in the battlefield, if this were changed I think war would be less frequent.
619768
sadly not much, and this is only referring to the basic system here and how it should work.  if one extends the idea of knowledge of the system to include government actions and such, its probably even lower.  i would like to think i have a fair understanding of it overall, but i know very little actually except what manages to leak out about what goes on behind the closed doors in dc.  a more process transparent government would be very nice.
601080
Well, there's two ways of looking at it.\nFirstly, as you say, in an increasingly globalized world no nation--no matter how powerful or wealthy--can afford to be selfish or motivated by narrow, self-centered interests. Thus, the USA too must adapt to the new realities and requirements of this age. It must strive to be more friendly and sympathetic towards other nations and generally develop a more positive attitude in its dealings with the rest of the world.\nThe other aspect is, that all nations have their own interests at stake, ultimately. And the USA also has its interests to watch and protect. But even if this is the case, it doesnt mean that it can ride rough-shod over other nations and interfere indiscriminately in their affairs.\n There is a dire need for it to strike the right balance between (a) national self-interest and (b) global needs, concerns and relations.\nIf the US wants to play a greater, more responsible role in world politics, it should do so with legitimacy i.e., by being a part of international organizations and acting in concord with them not by trying to usurp the role of the UN or other, similar agencies.
281653
I agree with you.  I think if their economies were more global, with more wealth for more people (as opposed to oil wealth spread amongst a few) and more participative government, then, yes, there would be less violence and strife and unhappiness in that part of the world.
1023471
Let's NOT assume there's going to be a world government, get RID of that idea...other countries need to work a lot harder at solving their own problems instead of trying to vote themselves into the United States or whatever...
747887
I agree. Their approach is more of a secular humanist approach to life. This is why they are more civilized, less greedy, protect human rights and the environment, and are generally more progressive and less profit oriented. They don't believe they are morally superior and don't feel the need to go and spread "democracy" like the US does.\nI am speaking about Western Europe.
635149
I think so.  And it's a shame that more people haven't answered this question.  It's horrible what goes on in those regions, and people don't seem to care because Africans tend to be seen as lesser people.  Hence, the lack of action.
776482
It has to do with the 'New World Order' and Globalization. When only a few corporations are calling the shots and pushing for this new order, globalization, they really don't care whom we trade with. The main goal is to reach the bottom line on an overhead, profit level. \n\nPolitics is just something to distract the masses and to make us feel like we have some sense of power when in reality, we have none.