Writing and rhetoric: Gerson drafted speeches for Bush in Texas and later followed him to the Oval Office.

FOREIGN POLICY: Many believe President Bush’s rhetoric about promoting American ideals abroad has been toned down during his second term. Do you agree?

Michael Gerson: No. If you listen to the president’s press conferences and speeches, those elements are there and [are] clearly stated. There’s always some difference between stating a heroic American ideal and its real-world implementation, but that doesn’t mean that you stop presenting the ideal. The reality is that the world is a messy and complicated place. It’s very important for a president to set out clear ideals, but also to be realistic in their implementation. That’s the way the president views himself: He’s an idealist about American values and a realist about American policy.

FP: Do you think small-government conservatism is over?

MG: No, I actually think there is a reemergence of small-government conservatism, in reaction to some things that have happened in the last few years. It is superficially attractive. But in the long run, it’s politically self-destructive because [candidates] end up talking about the size of government while others are talking about education, healthcare, and serious public concerns. It’s morally empty because, from my tradition and political philosophy, any political movement has to have a vision of social justice and the common good in order to appeal [to people]. And government can play a part in that. I’ve seen over the last five years that it clearly can.

FP: What do you think is the greatest underreported accomplishment of the Bush administration?

MG: The most dramatic thing that I’ve seen in my time in the White House was to sit in the Oval Office in late 2002 and watch the president make a decision to approve the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and then, not many months later, to be in Uganda to meet the first person to receive [antiretrovirals] and meet children whose lives were saved. To have, in the next two years, 2 million people on [antiretrovirals] across Africa is an extraordinary example of the power of government to do good. That is one of the things that the president doesn’t get much credit for right now but will be seen as a historic achievement later.

FP: What else should the United States do in terms of foreign aid?

MG: The Bush administration has increased foreign assistance at a higher rate than at any time since the Marshall Plan. A lot of that has gone to Iraq and Afghanistan, but a lot of it has gone to fighting AIDS and malaria and to the Millennium Challenge Account. The increases have been dramatic, but the need for more [aid] is even greater. Congress has not always been cooperative in increasing foreign assistance to the levels we need. So I think there’s a need for constant public pressure to make the point that foreign assistance, when it’s done properly, is not an altruistic add-on to American foreign policy. It’s a centerpiece commitment of our national security strategy. It shows our values in the world. We’re different from our Islamist opponents because we believe that everyone has value, or worth, and that worth is not determined by distance or culture.

FP: How do we reconcile President Bush’s words on intervention for the cause of freedom with the absence of any real progress on Darfur?

MG: I would dispute that there hasn’t been any real progress. There was real progress early in the administration on the CPA [Comprehensive Peace Agreement], which ended one of the most destructive civil wars in history.

But in the shadow of the CPA, you had the developing problems of Darfur. Here’s my frustration with this issue. From a multilateral perspective, the United States has done everything right. We’ve engaged the AU [African Union], we’ve gone to the U.N. Security Council, we’ve engaged [the United Nations’] military planners for the transition from the AU force, and we’ve tried to work with members of the Arab League. And people are still dying.

The problem is that the short-term need is a capable peacekeeping military force with a mandate to protect and—I don’t know a nice way to put it—the ability to punish those who kill and rape civilians. The president has talked about NATO as a way to strengthen the AU force, and eventually the U.N. force, but there’s resistance within NATO. I would love for America to be able to intervene unilaterally, but it’s not possible. We have to rely on the capabilities and willingness of allies to take up some of the responsibility.

FP: Speaking of allies, do you think there’s room domestically for cooperation between the religious right and the internationalist left?

MG: I’ve seen it. At a time when there is intense polarization in Washington, an extraordinary alliance between evangelicals, human rights groups, and African-American groups has developed. They share a deep concern and interest in Darfur. They’ve made it perhaps the most politically potent foreign-policy issue in America right now.

I’ve seen it more broadly, too, on the development agenda. At the White House, we’ve worked on development and AIDS with people at the Gates Foundation, whom I have tremendous respect for, and DATA [Development AIDS Trade Africa] and Bono. If you were to ask the people at DATA, who run the ONE Campaign, where they’ve drawn a lot of their grassroots strength from in the United States, it would be from evangelical churches. It is an emerging, positive alliance for moral engagement in the world.

FP: Which of the president’s speeches do you think best expresses his worldview?

MG: Probably the second inaugural, which he wanted to be the democracy speech—the culmination of a series of doctrines and approaches that we had defined in the previous two to three years. It talks very frankly about the necessity of democratic transformation for the future of American security. Particularly in the Middle East, the cycle of tyranny and radicalism has produced an unsustainable situation. That dynamic has to be changed, and democracy is the only way to do it. Some of it is working with authoritarian governments that may go down the path of reform, some of it is standing up for dissidents and taking the side of the oppressed, and some of it is confronting outlaw regimes that threaten the international order. This is, in many ways, the clearest crystallization of his foreign policy.

Michael J. Gerson is a former aide and chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush. He left the administration to join the Council on Foreign Relations as senior fellow on July 31.