In the late 1980s, on a trip to the then-dying Soviet Union, I was pressing a resident of Leningrad, a physician who shared a room in a prewar apartment with several other families, about the privations of life under communism. “You’re missing the point,” she told me impatiently. “Yes, we lack many things. But what we really want is to be able to make choices for ourselves.” In a word, freedom.

It was a chastening moment for me. How could I, an American, not have grasped such an obvious but powerful point? Thus I was sympathetic to President Bush’s ringing call for a new birth of freedom across the world, in part inspired by the Cold War memoir of another Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky. Mr. Bush’s inaugural tapped into the idealism that lies at the heart of the American experiment.

But freedom is never an easy project. As of this writing, the outcome of the Iraq election isn’t known. Even if turnout meets expectations and the winners are wise, however, there is likely to be some long, hard, bloody work ahead. Putting an end to tyranny throughout the world, much less Iraq, is the sort of utopianism for which conservatives once criticized Democrats – as many conservatives have noted in the last few weeks.

In his press conference last week, Mr. Bush suggested that his speech shouldn’t be seen as a utopian call to arms. And, in fairness, the speech itself pointed out that freedom must be chosen, not imposed at the point of an American bayonet. Mr. Bush is neither a Woodrow Wilson – “make the world safe for democracy” – nor a John F. Kennedy – “pay any price, bear any burden in defense of liberty.”

Ideas have consequences, as Richard Weaver once pointed out. Though Mr. Bush never mentioned Iraq by name in his speech, Iraq will be the first, and thus most important, test of whether some of the darker corners of the world are really ready for democracy. Having made “freedom” the ultimate goal, having asserted that freedom is a natural right not just of Westerners but all mankind, and having argued that freedom is the only real antidote to nuclear-armed terrorism, Mr. Bush has greatly increased the pressure on himself to deliver.

So you can forget about a quick exit from Iraq. To make any semblance of freedom work in Iraq, we could be there for years.

All that said, I am reluctant to say that Mr. Bush is entirely wrong. There is much to the argument that realism requires that idealism has its proper place. Realism would have dictated that Afghans stay home in droves rather than take the risk of voting; instead, they turned out in droves. Likewise, realism would have dictated keeping the Ukrainian protesters at arm’s length rather than jeopardizing relations with Russia; instead, Mr. Bush insisted on a new election, with inspiring results.

And when the Islamo-fascist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi threatened to kill anybody who participated in the “evil” democratic process in Iraq, he made Mr. Bush’s point perfectly for him. Imagine if such a man got his hands on a nuke.

Mr. Bush made scant reference to domestic policy in his Inaugural, but his theme of freedom is applicable there, too. Indeed, while Democrats are struggling to come up with a new vision of the future they can call their own, Mr. Bush was ranging deep behind their lines to capture the fine old vision of democratic idealism on behalf of Republicans. Look for Mr. Bush to talk about the need to restore choice to Americans in the form of Social Security reform, health care reform, tax reform, and educational reform.

In the Bush frame of reference, freedom is not just a luxury, it’s the indispensable element in creating a better tomorrow, both at home and abroad. Indeed, Mr. Bush can point out that the most powerful weapon America has in its battle for freedom abroad is the ability to show the success of ordered liberty at home.

There are dangers in the kind of extravagant rhetoric Mr. Bush used on Inauguration Day. Jimmy Carter’s gauzy chatter about human rights led to a loss of focus on American interests in favor of an internationalist agenda. But insofar as Mr. Bush was expressing his faith in the power of liberty – the ability of individuals to make choices for themselves – he was surely right, both politically and philosophically.

Mr. Bray is a Detroit News columnist.