This is a very interesting topic - thanks for focusing on it, Glenn. However, I think it only brushes the surface of some really fundamentally important issues. Dynastic politics is one symptom of the larger problem of eroding democracy. Rising inequality and the effect of money on politics is another example.

The larger issues I've been thinking about, are as follows:

1) As the world enters a new era of resource constraints, the resulting elevated conflict over scarce resources will tend to undermine democratic governance, which I believe has been nurtured by the the relative economic abundance of the past 300 years or so.

2) This new situation will lead to continuing erosion of democratic institutions and political processes toward more despotic, authoritarian institutions. However, the more power that gets centralized will not be used for the benefit of all, but for the benefit of those in power.

3) Furthermore, the elites of various countries (now with fewer constraints on them due to the more authoritarian nature of government) will tend to fight each other over the diminishing resource base, ultimately exacerbating the resource scarcity by throwing the resources into conflicts instead of remediation programs

4) Ironically, while I've been anti-authoritarian all my life, I've come to believe that existing democracies are NOT capable of solving the massive problems humanity now faces. Problems like Peak Oil and Climate Change have been ignored too long already to avoid severe consequences, and we still do effectively nothing to combat the problems.

They will play out the same way the credit crisis played out - the danger of serious overleveraging and the housing bubble was in plain sight for anyone who cared to look, but no real action was taken by the system to prevent the (easliy forseeable) consequences.

5) Even more ironically, we are going to get more authoritarian government, but instead of doing the things which will make life better for everyone, it will pursue short term strategies which favor elites but exacerbate the big problems facing mankind, leading to catastrophe.

This ties into most of the issues you talk about on your blog because you focus on all the anti-democratic and simply illegal things the Bushies have done (and politicians in general). I (and I know I'm not alone here) really admire you for this Glenn - it's rare to find someone so principled.

But I think you're ultimately fighting a losing battle, and I've come to fundamentally disagree with you anyway. We actually NEED centralized power in the hands of knowledgeable folks who can then be empowered to take the drastic steps necessary to try to literally save humanity. Unfortunately, my ideas will ultimately lose out too, to the selfish autocrats who will ruin the planet.

Do we use Israel as a base of operations in our mid-east wars? Do they do our work for us, or do we do theirs? Are their services so valuable that its OK to piss off those that sell us the oil we need?

The answer to the first question is usually no - but we could if push came to shove, and that's important.

Of course we sometimes do their work for them - the Iraq war is a good example, as was all the belligerence directed towards Iran in recent years. However, taking down Iraq was still viewed as in the interest of the US - it removed a anti-American dictator from one of the countries most endowed with oil wealth. The US has been itching to take out Saddam for quite a while - even the Clinton Administration's goal in Iraq was regime change.

As for the final question, the answer is Yes. The US has never tried to maintain good relations with the Middle Eastern oil producers. The deal is, and always has been, that we will support any government, even brutal, authoritarian regimes, in return for a promise to keep the oil flowing. When a governement arises in one of these places that might not want to continue this arrangement, we step in and "fix" the situation. Either we engineer a coup (put the Shah in power in Iran) or we simply take them out ourselves, as we did with Saddam in Iraq. Our government doesn't care if the Saudi population hates us, as long as the Saudi monarchy keeps the oil taps open.

I'll admit that the relationship has become so cozy and reflexive that the US does at times put Iraeli interests above US interests. An attack on Iran, which looked very possible a couple of years ago, and which was talked about repeatedly by Bush and other political leaders, would have been a case in point. But even there, it would have been an attack on an anti-American regime in a large oil producing country, which still fits the pattern of American foreign policy in the region since WWII.