One of the signs of a good book is stimulating debate. The Idea That is America is doing that, not only here on TPM but in the International Herald Tribune (I´ve been in Europe the past six months at Oxford and on a Fulbright in Spain), the Stephen Colbert show, and lots elsewhere.

Responding to Rachel´s post and some of the bloggers on mine:

One concern, Rachel, is how you formulate the policy choices. Of course Sudan shouldn´t have a say in “our moral decisionmaking”. But one can reject that and not put as much emphasis on an inherent and absolute special legitimacy in the international realm for liberal democracies. So too with the examples you give re China. Better to distinguish between intentions and consequences on this and other issues involving China and its internal politics and policy, with less emphasis on doing the right thing as defined by intentions and more on as consequences. Sudan and Iran, for example – there´s been some movement on China´s policy on both, and it´s come more from more nuanced and yes quiet diplomacy by various actors (Bush admin somewhat but also the Europeans and the UN), leaving the getting in their face more to NGOs and Mia Farrow: a complementarity that has a better chance of working than privileging liberal democraticness on issues such as these. So it´s not about giving up “one value or the other”; consistency does not mean purity, it ultimately is something of a net assessment.

In the broader debate as my colleagues know I have not been a supporter of the “Alliance of Democracies” and its underlying theory of democratic peace. This goes back to earlier TPM posts as well as to articles in The American Interest. The main point that pertains here is how much the nature of governments determines their foreign policies. Some, sure, but I don´t think democracy is either necessary for cooperation nor sufficient for it.

DanielGree makes some important points. He asks whether in my critique I´m holding the US to an academically naïve standard? Actually it´s a quite real world one in seeing judgments about consistency and hypocrisy as relative ones. We´re judged against where we set the bar for ourselves, which all the invocation of “city on a hill” and “last best hope of mankind” (staples from Dem candidates as well as Repubs) sets at an impossibly high level. People are more sensible and pragmatic than we credit them for. Of course the American public doesn´t want to hear the “blame America first” that Jeane Kirkpatrick pinned on Dems over 20 years ago. But they also get it that we´re not perfect, that it´s naïve to aspire to be so, and that life is about being as good a person/country as you can be while also attending to the needs and priorities of everyday life/foreign policy.