A “Realism of Means”?

When I read Francis Fukuyama’s op-ed in the Washington Post advocating what he calls a “realism of means” one sentence took me aback:

The United States has always seen the promotion of liberal democracy as part of its national identity.

because it is objectively untrue. Since the Founding Americans have regarded our own political system as liberal and republican/democratic and have often regarded that system as an example for other peoples. Actively promoting liberal democracy abroad as an objective of American foreign policy has largely been a feature of post-World War II American views. Woodrow Wilson advocated it but was unable to establish his conception of America’s international role as a durable national consensus. John Quincy Adams’s 1821 formulation that America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy” captures the distinction almost perfectly.

There is another weakness in Dr. Fukuyama’s “realism of means”: he proposes no limiting principle. He provides no mechanism for preventing his “realism of means” coupled with idealism of ends resulting in overextending our means to accomplish those ends. Dr. Fukuyama mistakes one American political tradition for the American national identity. More importantly, his “realism of means” contains no principle for deciding when desirable ends cease to be American interests. Realism can certainly tell us that our means are inadequate to an end. But unless it is permitted to constrain our ends as well, it cannot prevent the accumulation of objectives that eventually exceeds our means. John Quincy Adams understood that problem two centuries ago: America could wish liberty well everywhere without assuming responsibility for securing it everywhere.