More on spreading democracy as a foreign policy

Victor Davis Hanson lays it out:

The foreign policy Realists want nothing to do with George Bush's idealism. They
rely exclusively on deterrence and balance of power to adjudicate relations
abroad: We must deal with the world as it is, they say, rather than as we
think it should be. Isolationists likewise bristle at the idea of expending blood or
treasure in an open-ended commitment to spread our values. And don't expect
liberals to applaud the new idealism, as if their 1960s vision of an ethical foreign policy has at last arrived. The Left's attachment to "multiculturalism" long ago ended the idea that the U.S. had any right to place Western ideas of politics over indigenous practices. Other "progressives" are de facto pacifists; for them, any use of U.S. force is a betrayal of global diplomacy....

and then:

....Despite these many reservations and pitfalls, George Bush's new idealism may
eventually make America's foreign initiatives more consistent and predictable to
friend and enemy alike. Personalities and crises of the day may nuance the
stance of the United States, but illiberal regimes will ultimately realize there
will be no real friendship with the U.S. unless they reform their governments
and free their peoples.

In response to Mat's comments on a previous post, I'm not sure I can explain why the left has refused to embrace the Bush doctrine if their burning disdain of Bush, the man, is not a factor.