The outside world and its problems have barely intruded into the US presidential election. And when they have, most often in the form of the Middle East, polemics have been remarkably free of real differences of substance and of the sort of isolationism that characterises the Republican right and Democratic left.
At stake is a choice between two forms of internationalism that can be characterised broadly as "unilateralist" - the Republicans, and "multi-lateralist" - the Democrats.
The former reflects a more go-it-alone desire to assert distinctly US leadership on the world stage, the latter, a partnership approach, particularly with regard to international institutions such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, and World Trade Organisation, and more sensitive perhaps to the interdependence that globalisation has brought.
Vice-President Al Gore has buried his party's anti-war McGovernism and become a leading global proponent of a US engagement in peacekeeping and humanitarian work abroad.
Indeed he is understood to have played a key role in pushing the US to agree to NATO bombing of Serb forces in Bosnia in 1995 after being shocked by film of the overrunning of the UN "safe haven" of Srebrenica and the subsequent massacre of local men.
And while his rival, Governor George Bush, criticises the nature and over-extension of the US international presence abroad and the "rundown" of the country's capacity to fight a traditional war, he promotes what he calls a "distinctly American internationalism". US engagement abroad is critical, his foreign policy adviser, Ms Condoleeza Rice, insists but must be focused more on US interests.
Indeed, in one of the few campaign attacks on Mr Bush's foreign policy, Vice-President Gore's running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman, on Friday emphasised experience over content, reminding his audience that Mr Bush's father in 1988 had claimed "that there is no area where experience matters more than in diplomacy and war".
Apart from a number of trips to Mexico, Mr Bush has only ever left US shores three times in his life: five weeks in China in 1975, a trip to Gambia as part of a US delegation which went during his father's presidency to celebrate the country's independence, and in 1998 on a tour of the Middle East.
He is known to lean heavily on advisers like Ms Rice, the former adviser to Chief of Staff Gen Colin Powell, and veterans of his father's administration like the former Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz.
Yet, despite the campaign rhetoric, observers believe we will see a continuity of US policy to most of the rest of the world, with some notable exceptions. On two areas of particular concern to European allies, Mr Bush's strong espousal of a national missile defence system, and his support for gradual disengagement of US troops from European peacekeeping, Mr Bush has reassured NATO partners that nothing will happen without extensive discussions.
But a national missile defence system would breach the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty which the US would have to formally repudiate, and prospects of its development are already causing tensions with Moscow and Beijing as well as with European NATO partners. They all view the unilateral development of such a defence shield as undermining the core nuclear defence concept of mutually assured destruction and therefore as deeply destabilising of warming relationships.
The two candidates disagree on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty rejected by the Senate last year. NATO allies also view with concern the concept elaborated by Ms Rice of a new division of labour within the organisation, leaving the US to concentrate on traditional defence, and Mr Gore has criticised it for potentially reducing US influence in Europe.
Mr Bush has been careful not to criticise the Democrats' traditional championing of Israel's security concerns and has emphasised the US role as "honest broker" in the Middle East. But a Bush administration, like his father's, is likely to be distinctly more Arabist in sympathies, seeking to build alliances of moderate Arab nations.
Less tied to a vocal Jewish constituency at home, it may also be more willing to put pressure on Israel.
On China it is difficult in practice to see clear blue water between the candidates. Mr Bush emphasises that China should be seen as a "strategic competitor" rather than a "strategic partner" but like Mr Gore he also backs free trade with Beijing and the country's membership of the World Trade Organisation.
Both speak about defending Taiwan's autonomy but fall short of guaranteeing it for fear of encouraging it to take further provocative steps towards independence.
And on Russia, although Mr Bush criticises the Clinton-Gore administration for cosying up to the Russian leadership, he remains committed to engagement with the Russians in assisting institution building and the development of business. Both want a close dialogue over the problem of "loose nukes".