Three Fridays ago, riding back to the airport from a decidedly unfavorite day, I opened the  World Street Journal only to notice one disturbing dot after another.  First was what seemed great news, Mr. Paulson’s record personal earnings are the front page headline;  then news about Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt, teetering dominos;   Russia’s wheat output 29% lower, and the price of corn has doubled in some parts of the world;  inflation heating up in the higher-growth economies; and,  as always, North Korea and Iran in the background; fiscal crises challenging the European euro,  might it  end up in slices with onions on a pita bread;  Japan’s bond rating dropping to their lowest and likely not to recover for a decade; China baring its canines at a  befuddled US, but does that surprise anyone.  Then back to the front page, to note that Mr. Paulson’s wealth is being made on hedges.  Risks.

When Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton trip on each other’s foreign policy messaging, surely they are just trying to play both sides of the table? Or are they? And how does the world perceive this current administration’s often apologetic stance?  The US, for all its resilient power and might, has tended to be conflicted about its dominance of the world. Perhaps some of that is rooted in its democratic free market sensibility.  But late as it is, we have  yet to outgrow an adolescent anguish whether to stand honest about our economic interests on the one hand, or to  keep apologizing just how evil and awful we are.  Is it an innate American  naïveté; or simply a lack of sophistication to refuse a manipulative peace prize before one has actually achieved something?