How and where should the grand bargain be worked out and monitored? A “League of Democracies,” an idea in vogue in some circles, is likely not only to fail but to alienate other key countries whose cooperation is both possible and necessary. As a far better alternative, the G-20—or something closely resembling it—should be elevated as a complement and eventual successor to the G-7, not to replace existing institutions such as the United Nations but to provide a flexible forum for fashioning compromises and monitoring progress.

Obviously, neither the United States nor any other country is going to sign on to a “bargain” in which it gives up more than it gets. Each country would calculate the trade-offs from the vantage point of its own priorities and interests, which would then frame the global debate. From the U.S. perspective, the bargain might look something like this:

This list is neither exhaustive nor exclusive; many other ideas, perhaps better ones, could fit into the template. It is, rather, a tentative list meant to illustrate a concept. Although some proposals have a chance of producing early breakthroughs, most will require time and patient cultivation of global partners crucial to their success.

Today, the United States’ position is not unlike the one it found itself in after the Second World War. The challenge of erecting the institutions for the broken postwar world—the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, the North Atlantic alliance, the European Economic Community—is analogous to the task now at hand. The institutions that arose then were not part of a single system, but they were conceptually linked. Now, there’s much evidence to suggest that those institutions that had been designed for a very different world will no longer suffice.

Already, European leaders are trying to get the ball rolling on a remaking of global financial institutions and rules with a “Bretton Woods II” conference of the G-20 in Washington, beginning November 15. It is a welcome initiative, but it does not go far enough. We need to think bigger and take advantage of this “Bretton Woods moment”—the growing awareness around the world that a new burst of creativity and imagination is needed—to begin fashioning a new global order that goes beyond trade and finance to include security, energy, the environment, and governance. Like the post-World War II order, this one will evolve over the course of many years. It is the creation of a new international system.

Skeptics might argue that the Global Grand Bargain is just another utopian idea thrown on President Obama’s White House doorstep. Here’s why they’re wrong: Negotiations on all these issues are ongoing anyway, and the new administration inevitably will devote a great deal of time and expend political capital on all of them. The argument here is not that the Global Grand Bargain will be easy, but that it is the only alternative to continued gridlock on most of the issues affecting all of us.

Is it radical? Perhaps, but the idea is far better than continued tinkering at the margins of an outmoded system. It is a time for thinking big rather than thinking small.