In the wake of a reverberating Iranian “revolution”, POTUS 44 is advancing America’s global agenda by replacing brash pseudo-realist rhetoric with his own measured perspective on foreign policy.

Eager to redefine old notions of American exceptionalism in a changing international climate, Obama has shown self-restraint that stems not out of timidity or an unwillingness to promote “national democratic values,” but a calculated understanding that Washington must pursue more modern – and modest – paths to preeminence.

Hawkish Republican rhetoric regarding Obama’s “overly-cautious” course of action seems like little more than a drunk attempt to garner a loud “RAH-RAH” from blue-collar constituents. But this machismo – however satisfying – is incredibly self-defeating. In its desperation for “grassroots” support, the Republican Party is promoting old schools of thought that have, in previous years, invited global accusations of “American arrogance” and justified American interventionism abroad – a hairy embroilment that will burden future generations more severely than any stimulus will in the years to come.

Criticizing Mr. Obama’s soft-spoken opposition to Ayatollah Khomeini’s theocratic regime, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain demanded that the 44th Administration “follow the example of our founding fathers that declared that all of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights.”

Similarly, Sen. Chuck Grassley complained that the international community would question whether America truly believed in its own democratic principles.

Though these sentiments undeniably cut to the core of “what it means to be American” – and accurately explain the foundations of our patriotism – packaging them as public policy would be a fatal mistake.

In spite of the fact that Americans of every stripe have expressed their empathy towards pro-Mousavi demonstrators (and rightly so), it’s even more important for them to question their representatives’ most compelling instincts to indulge in ideology without analyzing the situation first in consequential terms.

Still, the main sin of Republican Congressmen lies in their mischaracterization of America’s Founding Fathers. More middle-ground realists than reactionaries, Enlightenment thinkers actually abhorred what they perceived as knee-jerk reactions from the “masses.”

As leaders of a new nation, they were pragmatists out of necessity – something that forced them to prioritize security over their own philosophical leanings. (Ex. Thomas Jefferson)

In the wake of the French Revolution of 1789 – a conflict that incensed a majority of pro-French American revolutionaries – President Washington grounded the nation by emphasizing the importance of American neutrality. (Indeed, this self-restraint proved valuable to our fledgling nation shortly after French turmoil turned to brutal nihilism.)

For every difference in this dated analogy, there is also one key similarity.

While one of POTUS #1’s main motivations for issuing a Proclamation of Neutrality was to avoid political and military conflicts with Britain, the importance of asserting democratic principles and encouraging its emergence in autocratic Europe was certainly more prominent back then than it is now.

Like his 44th counterpart, POTUS #1 wasn’t promoting feeble foreign policy or political weakness – he was acknowledging a network of alliances that, if broken, would be devastating in terms of American interests.

A binary perspective – however popular with the masses, and however justified for that matter – often proves stickier than it seems when officially incorporated into global politics.

In an increasingly globalized world with more sovereign actors and individuals, the Obama administration realizes not only the political insincerity of “ideological foreign policy”, but the real dangers it poses to American progress and security.

Though, as Sen. Lindsey Graham says, “the President of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it,” chest-thumping in the Middle East somehow doesn’t seem like such a good idea, at least given the US’ present circumstances.

Which leads us to the one crucial realization:

Country first, ideology second.

Popularity: 1% [?]