ABSTRACT
It should be clear by now, based on the facts we have presented and the public opinion polls we have cited, that American society is not much given to liberal crusades to perfect the world. This is certainly so for human rights in foreign policy. Should any president choose a policy based on a crusading version of American exceptionalism, launching an effort to correct the human rights violations of others, that policy would surely come to grief. This is especially the case when U.S. security personnel die because of the policy, or when other interests seen as vital are damaged. Recall that in Somalia during 1992-1993 a rare case of humanitarian intervention devoid of self-interest, authorized by George H. W. Bush and pursued by Bill Clinton, was abandoned when American soldiers were killed and wounded in a dubious exercise that had morphed into coercive statebuilding. Intervention in Somalia was supposed to benefit the Somali nation, but when costs escalated, popular and congressional pressure compelled a different direction. In the years since there is no shortage of evidence undermining the enduring myth of crusading American exceptionalism.
