It’s a time of testing for the “Bush Doctrine” – the notion America cannot rest until democracy reigns throughout the globe, beginning with Iraq.

President Bush laid out his doctrine in his inaugural address in January, officially broadening his foreign policy goal from merely combating terrorism to confronting tyranny throughout the world. Tyranny, he said, incubates the fever swamps from which spring the disaffected, remorseless terrorists who threaten American interests. But is the world ready for democracy?

Yes, says Mr. Bush’s favorite author, Natan Sharansky, the ex-Soviet dissident turned Israeli politician, in his book “The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom To Overcome Tyranny and Terror.” Mr. Sharansky argues that the rise of democracy will mean a decline in war and terror, because “democratic leaders depend on their people,” who have little interest in adventure and empire. Most affectingly, Mr. Sharansky tells of learning of Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire” speech in 1983 while a prisoner in the Soviet gulag.

“Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan’s ‘provocation’ quickly spread throughout the prison,” writes Mr. Sharansky. “We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth.”

The Bush doctrine likewise appears to have given a lift to democratic forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, though it appears Mr. Bush actually is being rather cautious about pushing the matter in places like North Korea, Syria, and Iran. Besides, while democracy may be “God’s gift to humanity,” as Mr. Bush likes to put it, that doesn’t mean it’s an automatic thing.

The people of the Soviet empire succeeded in throwing off the shackles of communism, but they are having a tougher time putting together a system of governance that mirrors Western understandings of human liberty. China has liberalized its economy, but political liberalization is lagging. In Africa and South America, democracy frequently consists of one man, one vote, once.

And the admittedly inspiring election in Iraq has been followed by … what? The new government of Iraq reportedly is negotiating with Sunni leaders in hopes that a political end to the insurgency can be found. Any resulting compromise is likely to fall far short of what we would recognize as a democratic government, though the United States might be smart to declare victory and get out at that point.

The Great Seal of the United States includes the hopeful aphorism “novus ordo seclorum” – a new order for the ages. But it’s not so easy to begin the world anew, as last week’s stunning rejection by French and Dutch voters of the massive, 450-page treaty to create the political bones of a United States of Europe suggests.

The idea of national sovereignty has been in bad odor in Europe since the horrors inflicted by Nazi Germany. But national sovereignty tends to align with bonds of cultural trust that also are crucial in creating institutions of self-government. Politically correct Americans may view Europe as an undifferentiated mass of white folks, but last week’s votes indicate a deep reluctance on the part of Europeans themselves to subordinate their existing institutions and freedoms to anything so vague as “Europe.”

The setback to the United States of Europe idea has even cast a pall over the more solid achievements of the Common Market. The newly-created euro, which makes it far easier to conduct business on a continental scale, sank like a stone after the French and Dutch votes.

Liberty is not an intellectual thing. It develops organically out of tradition, trial-and-error, and mutual trust among people who, by and large, speak the same language. The young United States already had a framework and tradition of liberty that is entirely lacking in other parts of the globe. Even then, it wasn’t until eight years after the Revolution that the Constitution was finally ratified – and even that includes some brutal compromises, most prominently by continuing to deny rights to slaves.

The idea that government should serve the people is undeniably spreading. That’s in large part thanks to the American example. There is a place in our foreign policy for inspiration, and hope, and altruism. That’s a big part of what it means to be American. But there are lots of things written on the human heart besides the thirst for liberty, as our own Framers understood. American foreign policy needs to reflect that understanding as well.

Mr. Bray is a Detroit News columnist.