CLAREMONT, California -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry criticizes President George W. Bush for "going it alone in Iraq," for failing to build the support of the United Nations and for failing to build an international coalition of America's traditional allies.

Bush is not the first president to fill the sting of these accusations. America's elite media and intellectual class used them repeatedly to indict the foreign policies of his father and President Ronald Reagan.

Even as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher stood at Reagan's side, Reagan was frequently accused of "going it alone." John Oakes, senior editor of The New York Times, pointed the finger at Reagan for substituting "a mindless militarism for a foreign policy . . . frightening our friends from Japan to West Germany." Strobe Talbott, a prominent foreign affairs columnist for Time Magazine who subsequently became deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, criticized Reagan's "instinctive predilection for unilateral" efforts in foreign policy.

The similarities in the criticism of Reagan and Bush do not stop here. Detractors mocked Reagan as they do Bush now for his "swagger," accusing him of being a cowboy, a yahoo from the West, whose lack of intelligence and sophistication showed itself in the failure to grasp the subtleties of foreign policy.

In fact, both Reagan and Bush broke new ground in foreign policy, much to the chagrin of the elite media and left intellectual circles, whose liberalism masks a conservative bias when it comes to foreign policy.

Reagan horrified the media and the intellectual class by abandoning the decades-old policy of containing the Soviet Union for one that aimed at bringing it down, while Bush put shivers up their spines after 9/11 with the doctrine of preemptive action. Reagan acted with moral clarity, focused determination and boldness as does Bush. By contrast, the media and intellectual class emphasize "shades of gray" thinking, foreign-policy complexities and maintenance of the status quo.

As for Kerry's criticism of Bush that he has not built a coalition of support in the U.N. for the Iraq war, the political utility of his indictment may well depend on what Americans think of the U.N. In the 1990s, the U.N. scored high in public opinion polls among Americans. Today, support for the U.N is on a fast trend downward as the U.N. loses the only authority it ever really had, its moral authority.

All too many Americans have grown weary of U.N. domination by countries whose governments, irresponsible to their own people, ooze mind-numbing, anti-American slogans while they maneuver the U.N.'s agenda to favor regional or ideological interests. Furthermore, stories frequently appear in America's media about the bloated, corrupt and expensive U.N. bureaucracy with its poor management and lack of accountability. Bringing this into sharp focus is the reported corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program, potentially the biggest scandal ever.

Beyond these, Americans increasingly see the U.N. as irrelevant. The failure of the U.N. to address the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the genocide now taking place in the Sudan creates a conspicuous disjunction between the high moral rhetoric of the U.N. and its ability or willingness to act in areas of fundamental importance to its responsibilities. Increasingly, whispers are heard comparing the U.N. and the League of Nations.

The passage of multiple U.N. resolutions against Saddam Hussein, toothless expressions in the face of an unwillingness to implement their ultimate penalties, have led Americans in growing numbers to believe that the U.N. is an expensive irrelevancy. The inability of the International Atomic Energy Agency to control the development of nuclear weaponry by states such as North Korea and Iran adds to the image of impotence and irrelevancy.

Adding insult to injury are recent statements by U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan about the illegality of the Iraq War, stepping beyond the bounds of his office as he inserts himself into American presidential politics.

Kerry's criticism of the president for failing to develop U.N. support for the war in Iraq lacks a believing or interested audience. What then about his charge that Bush has failed to rally America's traditional allies, referring, I assume, to France and Germany?

As Germany was not an ally until the end of World War II and the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany, Kerry must really have France in mind when he speaks of America's traditional allies. The relationship with France has never been as smooth as sentimentalists would have us believe. Right from the beginning, Napoleonic France alienated a large portion of America's leaders and public. For multiple reasons, the appeal by Kerry is a nonstarter in American politics today.

It's not just the perceived anti-American attitude of the French president, including his seeming disdain for all things American. Nor is it France's involvement in the food-for-oil program, mounting evidence about which suggests that France's refusal to support America at the U.N on Iraq may have been associated with rich payoffs by Saddam Hussein at the highest levels of French government and business.

The real reason why Kerry's appeal to France is a nonstarter is that the interests of America in the 21st century increasingly affiliate with the Pacific world. Take trade for instance. American consumers are more accustomed to purchasing products from Asian countries than from France. China and Japan follow Canada and Mexico as America's biggest trading partners. Twenty years ago, China was 19th on the list of American trading partners. Today it is close to catching up with Mexico. Twenty years ago the Netherlands was 10th but is now 15th. Meanwhile, Malaysia has risen from 25th to 11th and Singapore now ranks 12th. Very soon now if they have not already, Malaysia and Singapore will replace France (9th) and Italy (10th) among America's key trading partners.

Kerry says little about Asia and about trade, except for his critique of "outsourcing" and unfair trade practices. These themes may play well in the union-dominated rust-belt states of the Midwest, but fall on deaf ears in the sun-belt states, the new source of America's political power. In this respect, Kerry's repeated appeal to restore America's traditional alliances lacks the power to persuade given the new orientation of the American voter toward Asia.