In America's unique path to nationhood the pseudo-religious and enlightenment tones of our upbringing have controlled both our domestic and foreign policies character continually for 244 years. It is extremely unpopular, almost "un-American," to phrase our ventures as anything outside of providence. As the author articulates through his observations of periods where exemplary and missionary practitioners disagreed, they still formed their arguments through these precepts. Even our National Security Council writes in this fashion when the vast majority of citizenry is not even going to read it! I believe in the current age of globalization, mass media and Fukuyama's "end of history" that the missionary approach is the only viable option, but with caveats. In the post-Vietnam area where the country has become aware of our fallacies as a nation (and that all nations have) we must strive as much as possible to continue a policy of supporting democratic values and virtues abroad. The caveat is that we cannot forget that holding a moral higher ground as an example in the exemplary model. Forgetting this would be detrimental in a foreign policy objective.
Throughout the history described in the article the author shows a rise to more international interventionism as the country grew. It is both a product of economic policy as well as the byproduct of a growing regional and international power that brought us to this logical position. I believe it is logical for altruistic and utilitarian reasons. One desired to give an example of the merits of democracy to the world and one desired the wealth and power of a capitalistic society. The view that democracies will not fight each other suggests that they would help each other as well. The problem with the missionary position (I had to say it once) is the concept of "Jus ad Bellum" or right to wage war and the otherwise meddling in others' affairs. A democracy cannot espouse its values and commit what domestic and international communities see as an unjust war. Similarly to engage in clandestine activities in another country and get caught (ie Operation Ajax in Iran, 1953) defeats the foreign policy aim of using America's exceptionalism doctrine.
The belief of the exemplary position as the sole proponent of foreign policy is as useful as bringing a knife to a gun fight. The age of hoping that an example will spread without pushing the product is far gone. Isolationism is a truely American reaction to international conflict and understandable as having two oceans have always been a great comfort. Since the rattling of German and Japanese swords in WWII and the Soviet threat during the Cold War those two oceans have proven that they cannot truly protect us anymore. Disengagement only provides the space for another nation, not necessarily a democracy, to fill the hegemonic position.
The missionary strategy has both proven to be effective in instances like WWII and the the collapse of the Soviet Union, and destructive, as in the examples of the Filipino Insurrection and Vietnam. The difference is how the policy was implemented and how the policy conflicted with the moral guidance we inherited. The ability to maintain the example of "the city on the hill" while projecting a will to protect and assist nations in the furthering of democratic values is key to executing this policy with the most effect. To falter on either creates the accusations of hypocrisy from the international community that can nullify all of our efforts.
