By Paul Kennedy

In the past hundred years, four American presidents have attracted the hopes and apprehensions of the world. The first was Woodrow Wilson, whose “Fourteen Points” declaration in 1918 (which included the principle of national self-determination) rallied the public from Hanoi to West Africa to Poland. Franklin Roosevelt later inspired tens of millions who were now connected by radio to his voice, and who heard his “Four Freedoms” speech and support for a new post-fascist world order. The strikingly attractive John F. Kennedy used his inaugural address and subsequent speeches to suggest that America would again take the lead in advancing progress and fairness across our fractured planet.

The fourth, without doubt, is President George W. Bush. Leader of the most powerful nation in history, commander-in-chief of the conquest of Iraq, unrestrained by a mute Congress, passionate champion of the crusade against terrorism, Bush combines a Wilsonian idealism with a Churchillian resolve to smite his enemy into oblivion. When he speaks, be it an address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy or remarks from his ranch in Texas, the world listens, trying to figure out the text. Wherever he goes, so goes the world, apprehensive and hopeful.

What then is the difference between Mr. Bush and his three illustrious predecessors? If one looks at the rhetoric, hardly any at all: Each man spoke of ridding the world of evil, advancing democracy, creating international accords, increasing global prosperity. Some of their addresses are almost interchangeable, as if the same speechwriter had been sitting in the White House for the past 90 years. No, the difference lies elsewhere, in the perceptions of the outside world. In his time, each man -- Wilson, Roosevelt and Kennedy was the most popular leader in history. But Mr. Bush, if the recent survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project is any guide, has become the most unpopular person on earth.

The Pew survey is amazing because of its sheer size; more than 38,000 people in 44 countries were included in the initial sample in 2002, which was followed up with detailed interviews of 16,000 people in 20 countries this year. Those numbers are simply too great to be dismissed as inconclusive or sketchy. But the survey is also amazing because it measures the awful extent of the fear and loathing the Bush administration has inspired throughout the world.

Perhaps one could ignore the fact that only 1 percent of the inhabitants polled in the Palestinian Authority lands have a “favorable view” of the United States, considering America’s unrelenting support of Israel. But look at the plummeting of pro-American support among proclaimed allies. Only 15 percent of Indonesians regard themselves as favorably disposed toward the U.S. today, compared to 75 percent in 1999-2000. The drop in Turkey is from 52 percent to 15 percent; in Brazil, from 56 percent to 34 percent; in Germany, the greatest NATO ally, from 78 percent to 45 percent.

Since none of those folks vote in U.S. elections (and since the same Pew survey found that American views of such countries as Germany and France have similarly plunged), the statistics may be of little concern to Karl Rove or Donald Rumsfeld. But they will be to Colin Powell’s State Department, and they should absolutely be of concern to Mr. Bush.

What has gone wrong with America’s global assertiveness, and what is the difference today? The answer is simple. Wilson, FDR and Kennedy conveyed a message that America cared so much about the rest of humanity that it wanted to help -- with deeds, funding (the Marshall Plan tripled foreign aid) and technical assistance -- and expected nothing in return. Of course, historians of a later age will tell us that secular and material calculations were involved, but the impression abroad was that America was the most generous nation in history.

The Pew Report suggests something entirely different: namely, a massive distrust of the Bush administration (less so of America generally) around the world. Alas, not many Americans will know this because the media here have been showing a different image: President Bush “making up” with European leaders at Evian, leading a Middle East peace settlement, visiting his troops in Doha. Why disturb Americans by reporting how unpopular the country is?

Yet this is the reality the president needs to confront. Across the globe, anti-American murmurs grow: that the Pentagon and White House have been hijacked by neo-conservatives who have no regard for foreign opinion. That U.S. oil interests have undue influence over American policy. That certain cabinet members and elected officials stand suspiciously close to corporations like Haliburton and Bechtel, or to arms manufacturers, all of whom are profiting from the war against Iraq. That the neo-cons harbor unbalanced views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And, finally, that some of them are in firm pursuit of an “American Empire” and favor pre-emptive attacks on anyone who would get in their way.

Are such suspicions justified? Probably not, though reports of the construction of U.S. military bases across the Middle East and Asia, and of large contracts for American companies in Iraq, make it difficult to be sure. But that is not the point. The president is pursuing policies, such as increasing federal budget deficits and expanding our territorial footprint into Asia, that I hold to be awfully wrong; but that, too, is not the point. The point is this: The president, like his predecessors, wants to make his mark on history. He is a man of high ambition and high ideals. But Mr. Bush’s current package of policies is simply not enough to get him into the illustrious pantheon inhabited by Wilson, Roosevelt and Kennedy. In fact, it is killing his historical reputation day by day.

What, then, should he do? First, let us remember that the greatest world leaders were all guilty of changing their minds. Bismarck was a revolutionary war-maker for 10 years, then a peacemaker-diplomat for 20 years. Churchill was profoundly anti-Soviet in the 1920s, then profoundly anti-Nazi in the 1930s. De Gaulle was intensely supportive of a French-dominated Algeria but scotched the plan once he saw how damaging it was.

So what could George Bush do, were he willing to follow those examples? First, he could reduce the obsession with terrorism; it’s out there, yes, and needs careful attention -- but there are so many other needs worldwide crying for redress.

He must listen to the global “South,” really listen, on issues of poverty, the environment, migration, trade and U.S. protectionism. He must support international efforts to stop the holocausts in eastern Congo and southern Sudan. He must find ways to resuscitate and reform the U.N. Security Council (the Pew Report also shows a disturbing drop in peoples’ faith in the U.N. system). He has to rein in the cowboy rhetoric “looking people in the eye” is fine in a film like “High Noon,” but it is culturally offensive to Arabs.

Above all, he should distance himself from the neo-conservatives who are leading America astray, so that he himself can return to greater American traditions: of compassion at home, and generosity, understanding and careful idealism abroad. The neo-cons can retire to lucrative positions on company boards, to the American Enterprise Institute or the Cato Institute. But George W. Bush, the 43rd president of the United States, can only retire into history. It would be well for him to give the Pew polls some further thought.