Realist moderation of idealism

A surprisingly good op-ed today from Henry Kissinger that focuses on how idealism and realism should not be in direct contention but should moderate each other.

No serious realist should claim that power is its own justification. No idealist should imply that power is irrelevant to the spread of ideals. The real issue is to establish a sense of proportion between these two essential elements of policy. Overemphasis of either leads to stagnation or overextension.

Values are essential for defining objectives; strategy is what implements them by establishing priorities and defining timing...

...No single nation is strong enough or wise enough to involve itself in every political evolution around the world simultaneously. Priorities based on the national interest are imperative. Otherwise, psychological exhaustion and physical overextension are a real possibility, along with a global coalition of the resentful and nationalistic resisting perceived American hegemony.

While I may disagree with some of the details in the article, the basic contention is pretty much correct. Ideals should define the objectives and realist strategy must be considered when implementing them. We should promote democracy around the world, but we shouldn't assume we'll be greeted as liberators wherever we go. At times, geopolitical challenges like nuclear proliferation may interfere with promoting democracy as hard as we'd like or as hard as we should.

As for the "WTF, I agree with Henry Kissinger" moment, I got over it surprisingly fast. While I completely agree on the premise of balancing idealism and realism, I'm sure that Kissinger's policy preferences in creating that balance are far different from mine. Or, so I like to believe.