The Contrarian Loyalist

Thursday, March 27, 2008; A08

Sen. John McCain's foreign policy speech yesterday was designed to both embrace the overall direction set by President Bush and subtly distance McCain from the elements that have turned off moderate voters. Here's a guide to the Republican nominee's balancing act.

-- Glenn Kessler

I am, from hard experience and the judgment it informs, a realistic idealist. . . . We have enemies for whom no attack is too cruel, and no innocent life safe, and who would, if they could, strike us with the world's most terrible weapons. There are states that support them, and which might help them acquire those weapons because they share with terrorists the same animating hatred for the West and will not be placated by fresh appeals to the better angels of their nature. This is the central threat of our time.

McCain declares himself to be a "realistic idealist," presumably to separate himself from the Wilsonian idealism associated with Bush, which suggests that freedom will naturally emerge in societies under U.S. tutelage. (Lately, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has asserted that the administration's foreign policy is best described as "American realism.") But then McCain restates Bush's argument that an "axis of evil" of terrorists and rogue states is working against the United States -- but avoids the words so clearly linked to the president.

In such a world, where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone. . . . When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

This is McCain's firmest declaration of independence from Bush's approach, which was once described by then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as thus: "He tries to persuade others why that is the correct position. When it does not work, then we will take the position we believe is correct." McCain, by contrast, dispenses with Bush's notion that there is just one superpower and argues that the rise of many powers makes it even more essential to consider other countries' views.

China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries. . . . But until China moves toward political liberalization, our relationship will be based on periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values. . . . We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: It should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia.

McCain's suggestion that China may be an adversary departs from Bush's more conciliatory approach. On Russia, McCain appears willing to risk a major diplomatic break by booting Moscow out of the exclusive "Group of Eight" economic club, an idea Bush has rejected.

We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these outdated autocracies is the safest bet. They no longer provide lasting stability, only the illusion of it. We must not act rashly or demand change overnight. But neither can we pretend the status quo is sustainable, stable, or in our interests. Change is occurring whether we want it or not. . . . We must help expand the power and reach of freedom, using all our many strengths as a free people. This is not just idealism. It is the truest kind of realism.

McCain embraces Bush's push for greater democracy in the Middle East, yet appears critical of it at the same time. McCain actually accepts Bush's argument that the embrace of stable autocracies has led to instability in the region. But, strikingly, McCain seems intent on marrying the word "idealism" with a reference to "realism," underscoring how discredited he believes Bush's vision has become in the minds of voters.

We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq. . . . Our critics say America needs to repair its imag e in the world. How can they argue at the same time for the morally reprehensible abandonment of our responsibilities

in Iraq?

Having established that he wants to repair the U.S. image in the world, McCain tries to turn that argument against the Democrats, saying that it would not comfort allies for the United States to abandon the mess it made in Iraq.