(via Innocents Abroad)   Francis Fukuyama has a typically-brilliant, well-written article in Opinion Journal on American Conservative Exceptionalism, Universalism and our dual realist / idealist foriegn policy.(phew!) 

In a nutshell:

• American (Neo-con/libertarian-esque) conservatism is more of an intellectual view rooted in individualism and the susceptibility of those in power to fall prey to "Human Nature."   "Conservatism" in Europe, on the other hand, tends to be rooted in a reactionary nostalgia.   American "conservatism" represents a grasp of dynamic social evolution in it's support for the displacement inherent in globalization, entrepreneurship, open immigration, etc.  By contrast, European conservatism tends to be more decidedly statist and organized around notions of national prestige, social stability and cultural preservation.  (prev blog entry)

• American conservatism is inherently missionizing and viewed as a universal ideal true for all individuals around the world rather than a localized system for our shores.

  ...The political agenda of American conservatives is no less revolutionary. From the beginning, Americans regarded their values and institutions as embodying universal aspirations that would one day have a significance far beyond the shores of the United States. The Great Seal on the back of the dollar bill bears the inscription novus ordo seclorum--"new order of the ages"--that expresses a very unconservative sentiment with potentially revolutionary consequences. In this view, democracy, constitutional government and the individual rights on which they rest are good not just for North Americans by virtue of their peculiar habits and traditions, but for all people around the world.

• Bush administration foreign policy particularly embodies this decidedly American view.  It clearly possesses a realist strain -- pulling away from International treaties like Kyoto and ABM.   However, it just as emphatically has an idealist one -- fierce advocacy of "regime changes" throughout the Middle East in order to bring Liberal democratic reforms.   In a previous blog entry, I cited WMD as a key factor that removes the apparent contradictions between these 2 positions. 

• Liberal Democracy -- while great at preserving long term US security -- is first predicated upon engineering a Liberal Society which may require intervening authoritarianism

  ...But liberation may give way to something that seems more like occupation over time. The same will apply in many other countries spawning terrorism where we may be tempted to expand our reach. Democracy and American national interests do indeed go together, but only over the long term and with periodic exceptions when we are often better served in the short run by friendly authoritarians. The idealist project may therefore come to look more like empire pure and simple in the short run.

Great Stuff!