Foreign policy is delicate and complicated; few Presidents do it well. Leaders of nation-states must place their own country’s interests first, commit to strong national defense, and ensure military security. Indeed, the preamble of our Constitution lays out this duty as a primary and essential function of government: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense (bolding added)…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” A critical, arguably irrefutable, function of government is to defend its people and ensure their security.

Achieving this goal, however, is more nuanced than is immediately apparent. Effective foreign policy also weaves in notions of diplomacy, cooperation, and international alignment. It is difficult for any government to achieve the totality of its goals through raw military might.

In fact, a leading school of thought in political science known as international Liberalism (separate from domestic liberalism) holds that security is best attained through a one-world viewpoint, with total cooperation and convergence of each nation. Here, it is believed nations overcome inherent international anarchy and insecurity by tying themselves tightly together. Thus, attacking one another would be foolish. Proponents point out that two democracies have never gone to war against one other (due to their shared values and structures), and contend that organizations like the U.N. bring nations into a common framework and reduce international angst.

The opposing viewpoint is found in Realism, the idea that nations always pursue their own self-interest, and therefore adopt policies that further their own security. Countries use force as they see fit, act independently, and engage in diplomacy only insofar as it furthers their own goals. Realists hold that the only reason nations participate in organizations like the U.N. is to impose their own interests on other countries (note U.S. military leadership and dominance within the U.N. and its security council), and will break from international alignment when necessary (see Iraq).

The Bush Administration tried to strike a balance between the two theories, a philosophy they dubbed “Neo-Conservatism.” In short, the U.S. would pursue its own security interests by forcefully creating cooperative nations. This was the philosophical underpinning for Iraq: Make Iraq a Democracy and you have a sympathetic nation-state for U.S. interests.

So where does President Obama stand?

At the outset of his presidency, it appeared he was squarely in the camp of Liberalism, arguing the U.S. should apologize for charging ahead on its own, have open dialogue with enemies, and act in concert with broad international institutions. He was widely criticized by hawks and Republicans alike for his “apology tour,” “bow to Japan,” and apparent rejection of American exceptionalism.

Beginning two weeks ago, however, he displayed a wholly different viewpoint. Committing thousands more troops to Afghanistan, he stood by his campaign promise to pursue U.S. security interests by dismantling al Qaeda’s operations in the Arab world. He was widely criticized by pacifists and the Left for furthering U.S. involvement in a difficult war.

Thursday, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, President Obama had what many are calling a watershed moment in his young presidency. He established the unique role of the U.S. in international security, spoke of the need for “just war,” and stressed his personal duty to defend American interests above all else. The speech was markedly Realist, examining world history through the lens of U.S. power:

“There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified…Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason….Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.”

Robert Kagan, a leading neo-conservative, called the address “a substantial shift away from the more one-worldish approach” of the president’s June address to Muslims in Cairo. He continued saying, “He’s moved from a somewhat apologetic rendition of American history to an explicitly exceptionalist approach of an American president at war.” Kagan joined in the chorus of conservative praise coming down from the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. The speech was all the more striking given the largely liberal, pacifist audience.

Cynics say the President’s shift was in response to internal White House polling data showing the broad decline of support for his liberal agenda. The Administration and the Democratic Party, some think, are worried about 2010. But such cynicism is intellectually dishonest—you cannot criticize the President at every turn, claiming to be non-partisan, and then dismiss him when he gets it right. Rational discourse requires acknowledgement of principles and ideas, not political banter.

In many ways, the president’s shift marks a welcome balance to U.S. foreign policy. He wants international alignment, but realizes U.S. interests must come first. He wants our nation to be understanding of opposing viewpoints and cultures, but recognizes America’s vital role as the City on a Hill. He wants diplomacy first, but understands force is often necessary. He wants to partner with the international community, but knows American exceoptionalism portends individual action.

President Bush was exceptional in his defense of our nation. For all of his shortcomings, the prism of history will remember that he kept us safe in the wake of the greatest terrorist uprising in history. In many ways, however, President Bush took American exceptionalism too far. It became an arrogant Realism—Join or get out of our way. In the end, that’s how you want your leader to make decisions, in your country’s sole interest. But he should do so with tact, with balance, and with leadership borne of humility through duty. Diplomacy is an essential part of long-lasting security.

Though he faltered when he began, it appears President Obama may be changing course. Perhaps the reality of the office and the weight of his position brought him back from the idealist rim of complete international cooperation and pacifism. Or, perhaps this was his position all along, and he is just now letting us in. In the end, he will be judged on the totality of his actions, and not simply his words. But for now, we should take heed that our President may have his watershed moment on foreign policy, and it was a moment we should be proud of.

For the full text of the speech click here:  President Obama’s Nobel Acceptance Speech

 -Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township, and the Founder of TruPolitics.net