On liberty.

• Author: Gvosdev, Nikolas K.
• Position: The Realist

IS AMERICA about to launch a single-minded crusade to promote liberty around the globe, committing the blood and treasure of the United States to spread democracy in the Middle East and around the world at any cost? Some commentators seem to hope so, and to eagerly anticipate the sound of tank engines starting up for a dash to Damascus or Tehran. Others have expressed considerable concern. The differing reactions to President Bush's second inaugural address reflect the real tension--in the speech itself as well as in our foreign policy--between our interests and our values, which are not always the same, in foreign policy or everyday life.

In the soaring cadences of the speech, Bush drew no distinction between American interests and American values. In fact, he argued that "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one." Such idealistic rhetoric may be appropriate in setting the vision that will guide his second term. But how the rhetoric becomes reality in day-to-day policy decisions is yet to be seen--and possibly yet to be defined, as even within the administration there are real differences of opinion over the best way to proceed.

To his credit, the president and his team have worked hard to ensure that simplified caricatures of his remarks are seen for what they really are. At his press conference on January 26, 2005, Bush himself reiterated that democratization is a "process" and a "work in progress" and reminded his audience, "There won't be instant democracy." He emphasized that his inaugural address laid out a path "toward an ideal world" and that it would take "the work of generations."

When asked directly about how to apply his commitment to freedom in dealing with countries like Russia, China and Saudi Arabia, the president seems to have endorsed a pragmatic and evolutionary approach. This would mean working with existing regimes to achieve "practical objectives" in solving the "problems of the day", while encouraging them to take steps toward greater freedom and openness. He did not set out a strategy of "permanent revolution."

The fact that the White House has found it necessary to issue a whole series of clarifications to the speech illustrates the lack of sophistication with which many commentators have approached the whole issue of democracy. Some act as if the emergence of democracy in a country were solely a matter of protests in a capital city's main square or a single successful election, and they...