President Bush is scheduled to speak this morning in Washington about his Freedom Agenda, using Captive Nations Week — established by Congress during the Cold War — as a moment to examine what has been accomplished and what remains to be done. It would be a fine occasion for the president to examine not only the landscape abroad, where countries such as Syria, North Korea, and Iran are badly in need of expanded freedom and democracy, but the situation at home, where Mr. Bush has sometimes had trouble bringing his own administration in line with his freedom agenda.

Reformers are fond of proposing merit pay for public school teachers, but one proposal one doesn’t hear much about is the idea of performance-based pay for diplomats. Right now there is a tendency to judge the success of our foreign service officers and ambassadors abroad by how smooth America’s relations are with the governments in which these American diplomats are serving. Mr. Bush could help nudge things in the right direction by emphasizing the idea that American diplomats should be evaluated not just on their dealings with their hosts in authoritarian countries, but on their meetings with democratic dissidents. The mark of a successful State Department, after all, isn’t whether America is loved by governments around the world but whether freedom and democracy and the rule of law are on the upswing.

Critics will argue that it is too late in Mr. Bush’s term for such a sweeping change. But if Mr. Bush’s successor is to be Senator McCain, Mr. Bush would be doing Mr. McCain a favor by trying to alter the culture of the State Department now before it tries to undermine Mr. McCain’s agenda the way it has undercut Mr. Bush’s. And if Mr. Bush’s successor is to be Senator Obama, Mr. Bush will be doing everyone a favor if he shines a spotlight on the issue by creating a situation where the press can write articles like, “President Obama yesterday revoked a Bush-era executive order tying the pay and promotion of diplomats to their willingness to meet with democratic dissidents and help promote freedom and democracy.”

Now is the time to lay down markers before it is too late. None of this is to deny that there are plenty of idealistic diplomats at the State Department and even some who got into the foreign service because they hoped to help advance freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. The point would be to reward them and evaluate them for their work on these issues just as they are rewarded and evaluated for their work on other aspects of the American foreign policy agenda.