The Bush Doctrine, in truth, defies easy definition or classification. The twin pillars of Bush's policy—aggressively spreading democracy, while forcefully preempting emerging threats—are as unfamilar to recent American foreign policy as their combination is unsettling. As a result, his overall strategy has been at times grossly misunderstood and caricatured. To label Bush and the other key architects of his policy "neocons" is to substitute polemics for serious analysis. Bush has transformed American foreign policy, at least in terms of its contemporary practice, and so our first step should be to understand what he has accomplished.

We might begin by considering the ways he has diverged from, even upended, the two main schools of foreign-policy making in the United States—idealism and realism. Both in terms of the principles he has set forth, and the policies he has implemented, Bush has pretty much abandoned these two long-standing approaches. By bringing the Bush policy into fuller view, and clearer focus, we shall be in a better position to consider possible problems and complications. What's not entirely clear is whether Bush's new thinking has adequately taken account of the possible constraints imposed upon it by America's own polity as well as certain deeper political realities.

Bush's idealism thus breaks with the Left's version on two crucial points: It is rooted in a universal standard of human rights or dignity, and it is tempered by prudential concern for our national security.

To modern-day realists, the Bush Doctrine with its emphasis on democracy-promotion and preventive war seems destabilizing and dangerous: never mind that the doctrine itself was a response to the shock of September 11. That realists cleave, still, to a nonexistent pre-9/11 status quo bespeaks a certain naïveté, or even a certain kind of idealism. Perhaps this is one reason Bush in his addresses so often charges that those "who call themselves 'realists'" have in fact "lost contact with a fundamental reality."

Is it really possible to promote democracy in the name of world peace, while threatening preventive war? This is one of those theoretical conundrums that is perhaps less serious than it seems at first. The truth is that no politician can succeed in America who is not an optimist. [...] Perpetual peace is our hope, but until that day arises, preventive war will necessarily remain an option. One is reminded that a foolish consistency is indeed the hobgoblin of little minds.

Despite these questions of emphasis, Bush's program of democracy promotion is a welcome reminder that not all political regimes are the same, and that this has serious consequences for America's security. The underlying thesis of Bush's democracy policy is that regime type is of the utmost consequence. It's more important to encourage democratic reform than to sign peace treaties or international agreements. Liberal democracies tend to keep their promises; tyrannies do not. In this regard, Bush's policy shows an unusual awareness of how the world really works.

Such democratic quietude raises questions about the feasibility of the Bush Doctrine over the long haul. Preventive war means responding decisively to emerging or partially hidden threats—threats that democratic peoples are loath to recognize.

Regretfully, occasions will arise when our leaders will be compelled to commit seeming or real injustices for the sake of the country's survival. That this is an enduring, unpalatable truth of political life, especially in foreign relations, cannot be reasonably doubted by anyone. Our politicians should not be misled into thinking they have overcome this basic reality of political life, lest when the occasion arises, they lack the fortitude to do what is truly necessary.

Sometimes our security will require confronting threats directly, and so a great coalition of nations has come together to fight the terrorists across the world. We've worked together to help break up terrorist networks that cross borders, and rout out radical cells within our own borders. We've eliminated terrorist sanctuaries. We're using our diplomatic and financial tools to cut off their financing and drain them of support. And as we fight, the terrorists must know that the world stands united against them. We must complete the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that will put every nation on record: The targeting and deliberate killing by terrorists of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance. [...]

Later today, the Security Council has an opportunity to put the terrorists on notice when it votes on a resolution that condemns the incitement of terrorist acts -- the resolution that calls upon all states to take appropriate steps to end such incitement. We also need to sign and implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, so that all those who seek radioactive materials or nuclear devices are prosecuted and extradited, wherever they are. We must send a clear message to the rulers of outlaw regimes that sponsor terror and pursue weapons of mass murder: You will not be allowed to threaten the peace and stability of the world.

Confronting our enemies is essential, and so civilized nations will continue to take the fight to the terrorists. Yet we know that this war will not be won by force of arms alone. We must defeat the terrorists on the battlefield, and we must also defeat them in the battle of ideas. We must change the conditions that allow terrorists to flourish and recruit, by spreading the hope of freedom to millions who've never known it. We must help raise up the failing states and stagnant societies that provide fertile ground for the terrorists. We must defend and extend a vision of human dignity, and opportunity, and prosperity -- a vision far stronger than the dark appeal of resentment and murder. [...]

We have a moral obligation to help others [...] Tying aid to reform is essential to eliminating poverty [...] the surest path to greater wealth is greater trade. [...] We must work together in the Doha negotiations to eliminate agricultural subsidies that distort trade and stunt development, and to eliminate tariffs and other barriers to open markets for farmers around the world. [...] In the long run, the best way to protect the religious freedom, and the rights of women and minorities, is through institutions of self-rule, which allow people to assert and defend their own rights. All who stand for human rights must also stand for human freedom. [...]

Through the new U.N. Democracy Fund, the democratic members of the U.N. will work to help others who want to join the democratic world. It is fitting that the world's largest democracy, India, has taken a leadership role in this effort, pledging $10 million to get the fund started. Every free nation has an interest in the success of this fund -- and every free nation has a responsibility in advancing the cause of liberty. [...]

The work of democracy is larger than holding a fair election; it requires building the institutions that sustain freedom. Democracy takes different forms in different cultures, yet all free societies have certain things in common. Democratic nations uphold the rule of law, impose limits on the power of the state, treat women and minorities as full citizens. Democratic nations protect private property, free speech and religious expression. Democratic nations grow in strength because they reward and respect the creative gifts of their people. And democratic nations contribute to peace and stability because they seek national greatness in the achievements of their citizens, not the conquest of their neighbors. [...]

The United Nations has taken the first steps toward reform. The process will continue in the General Assembly this fall, and the United States will join with others to lead the effort. And the process of reform begins with members taking our responsibilities seriously. When this great institution's member states choose notorious abusers of human rights to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, they discredit a noble effort, and undermine the credibility of the whole organization. If member countries want the United Nations to be respected -- respected and effective, they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect.

"Have we instructed the rescuers to not help black people?" President Bush asked an aide, "I don't want black people helped while I'm president. This administration hates black people." He saw Condoleezza Rice enter the room. "Condi! I need you to investigate my administration and root out any black people who may be hiding in it."

"Were you listening to left-wing nuts and got confused about your actual positions on issues again?" Condi asked accusingly.

Bush looked down at his feet. "Maybe."