There's an article in the New York Times that starts out looking like it might be headed in the same direction as the one I discussed earlier by David Ignatius. This is Noah Feldman:
It seems strange to the rest of the world, but we Americans can't seem to stop talking about how other countries should be democratic like we are. From George Washington's boast of being "irresistibly excited whensoever, in any country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom," to Woodrow Wilson's vow to make the world safe for democracy, to George W. Bush's second inaugural, our presidents have invoked the aspiration to expand self-government ever outward. The expansion of democracy is for us what empire was for the great world powers before us: a rallying cry that makes us proud and keeps us unified - while also serving our interests.Democracy as a new version of empire? Is he heading towards the need to back off from 'preaching' about it, to cut the 'hectoring' and 'arrogance'? No. Feldman goes on:
As ideal and slogan, though, the creed of exporting democracy differs from the creed of expanding empire in one important respect: When we fail to follow it, we look hypocritical. An empire that extends itself selectively is just being prudent about its own limitations. A republic that supports democratization selectively is another matter.A better conclusion.