To the outside viewer, the new trademarks of America are paranoia, frenzy, and instability. Labor Day week in Washington, like so many other weeks, has reinforced this image.

From within the United States, our political show is a disturbing spectacle of a country and government at odds with itself. For those watching from abroad, for whom any finer distinctions blur into broader strokes, the United States is a chaotic mess. That perception (not unfounded) has serious consequences for the U.S.

From Trump tweets leaving open questions of “TREASON?” to the New York Times anonymous op-ed touting the "Resistance" from within the White House. From presidential praise for North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, to confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court punctuated by protests. Throw in a damning book on the president titled “ Fear,” penned by the journalist who once took down a president, and the cascade chaos is an avalanche.

Viewed individually, as the U.S. media present these storylines, each case can be parsed, examined, debated, and written about and broken down into more manageable discussions. International audiences are far less likely to follow each tweet, consider each hearing or protest in isolation. When they look at the big picture, they see only growing chaos.

So should we care what the rest of the world thinks about us?

Yes.

First, it hurts us if our allies think we're unreliable and unstable.

Vitriol from within and without the White House swirls around the nation’s politics, exacerbated by stunts like the abrupt cancellation of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s trip to North Korea, backing out of the G7 agreement earlier this summer, and a NAFTA deal that leaves out Canada. Add to this list Trump’s cancellation of both the Transpacific Partnership and the Iran Deal. For countries looking for a stable, deal-making partner, the U.S. isn't looking promising. America's stance toward other countries seems increasingly dependent on the whim of one erratic man and that of lawmakers more interested in political grandstanding than lawmaking.

A second consequence is more noticeable: the real loss of international investment spurred by Washington’s instability.

The display of chaos and demonstrated lack of presidential understanding on trade policy not only produces bad policy (such as tariffs or the threat of leaving the World Trade Organization). It also scares off investors. Instability, after all, rarely results in a lasting, strong economy — even if the numbers today look good.

A more long-term consequence of a dysfunctional Washington is a U.S. loss of authority and leadership.

The president of the United States, often called the “leader of the free world” has, as evidenced by both Bob Woodward’s book and the scathing NYT op-ed, surprisingly little interest or capacity to appreciate the implications of his actions. This leaves the free world short on leadership. That could pave the way for countries like China and Russia to not only continue to pursue aggressive regional ambitions uninhibited, but also allow for their re-emergence as dominant world powers.

Finally, the United States, that “city upon a hill,” is held up as a demonstration of democracy. As Washington increasingly spins off the rails bending to both the worst populists and self-interested influences of the Left and the Right, democracy loses a battle of public opinion. Today, critics of democracy and the freedoms it offers need not look beyond the White House to have an easy example of the instability it creates in the modern world.

As the Washington circus churns, it is worthwhile to remember what it looks like from abroad. The U.S. should be a serious player, not the source of an endless comedic cycle.