Jim Moore’s blog: Innovation, Strategy, Public Policy

John Robb makes a good point:

 Jim Moore wonders whether John Edwards or John Kerry is a second superpower candidate.  Seems to me that it is impossible to represent both a movement that wants to keep the US in check and the US.  So the right answer may be: neither candidate.

I think it probably depends in part on what “in check” means.  I did write in Second Superpower that

As the United States government becomes more
belligerent in using its power in the world, many people are longing for a
“second superpower” that can keep the US in check.  Indeed, many people desire a superpower that speaks for the
interests of planetary society, for long-term well-being, and that encourages
broad participation in the democratic process.

John highlights an important issue: the tension between the interests
of the US and of the world, and the tension in the role of a US
president between caring for the US, and caring (even in an elightened
self-interested way) for the whole world.

Because of John’s comment I went back to reread my own paper.  If
“in check” is taken in the sense of chess–i.e. one player winning the
game and defeating another–then of course a US president can’t be
elected to do that.  I did not mean that in the paper, and perhaps
I should have been more precise.  I meant “in check” to be taken
more in the sense of “checks and balances”–as a counter to US
unilateralism.  If this is how one reads the line, than I
personally believe it would be very helpful to have a US president who “speaks for the
interests of planetary society, for long-term well-being, and that encourages
broad participation in the democratic process.” 

This is especially important to the degree you believe that as the
“first superpower” the US is the de facto steward of the interests of
the whole world, in any case.