Text size:

It's best to lead the world by example

James Klurfeld

July 3, 2008

There's often a misconception that at the time of the American Revolution, foreign policy was not a particularly important consideration. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What role France could play in helping the colonists defeat Great Britain; the decision whether to ally with France or Britain or remain neutral - these were defining debates in the nation's earliest days. In fact, foreign policy was one of the major reasons for the formation of political parties.

So as we prepare to celebrate July 4 this year, it should come as no surprise that there's a fundamental foreign policy debate already raging between the presumptive presidential nominees: Democrat Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain. At the heart of that debate is the role of American power in promoting democratic values around the globe.

Of course, in 1776 and later in the 1790s, the United States was a weak military power trying to negotiate its role between the two superpowers of the time: France and Britain. Those who watched HBO's excellent series on the life of John Adams, based on David McCullough's book, know that for all the controversy in his presidential term, Adams' greatest accomplish was keeping the fledgling republic out of war.

James Klurfeld Bio | E-mail | Recent columns

But the founders had no doubt that what they had started in America - the right of people to govern themselves - was a historic turning point, and that the principles of individual freedom and self government would spread throughout the world.

I often site Thomas Jefferson's final letter - written in 1826 to decline an invitation to the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (he was too feeble to make the trip) - in which he predicted the continued spread of what he and his band of brothers had begun:

"May it [the Declaration] be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to other later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government."

This sense of American exceptionalism is still very much with us. Both parties and both nominees believe in the special role the United States plays in the world and the correctness of our system of governance, not just for us but for everybody. This isn't just Jeffersonian, it's part of the American psyche.

But the critical divide is how aggressive the nation should be in spreading our system. In his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush sounded a clarion call:

"America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. ... Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time. ... So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

But there's another way of looking at this special mission of the United States. It's the lesson I learned growing up during the Cold War, and it's been reinforced by our experience in Iraq: We as a nation are much more effective when we are an example of what can be, rather than when we try to impose our values.

From everything I've learned about McCain, he is comfortable with the thrust of Bush's second inaugural address. Obama, who clearly has less practical experience in foreign policy, has a greater appreciation of the United States as an example and of its limits to impose its system on others.

Sooner or later, said Jefferson. That implies patience.