Implications of American Lens on US Foreign Policy

In his essay “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy,” Fareed Zakaria makes the distinction between democracy and constitutional liberalism. Democracy, he posits, is flourishing in the world as the prime form of government. That is, democracy is abundant as a form of government that holds competitive, multiparty elections. However, many democracies do not exhibit the form of constitutional liberalism which protects the inalienable rights of its citizens, has equality under the law, has impartial courts, freedom of speech and religion, and establishes a separation of powers that preserves checks and balances on the distribution and manipulation of power
Mr. Zakaria posits this distinction, I believe, from a strong American platform. That is, all the qualifications that define constitutional liberalism as existing within a democracy are understood as American attributes. That is not to say that British, Canada, or other successful democracies in Western Europe do not exhibit these characteristics of constitutional liberalism. However, constitutional liberalism in a democracy can best be framed within the unique cultural and historical grounding on which America was formed.
The drafters of the constitution of the United States implanted liberal ideas of how democracy should work in their new republic. The oppression of the British crown instilled the idea of personal freedom in which the government should stay out of the business of its citizens. Jefferson studied Montesquieu and his theories of the separation of powers. John Adams used his knowledge of British rule to conclude that one sole legislative branch is too flaky, and is too much liable to the avarices of men. American constitutionalism, it seems, lends itself to the unique historical narrative which utilized the ideas European predecessors. Accordingly, an American’s conception of democracy is inherently tied into the ideas of constitutional liberalism.
What does this say about Mr. Zakaria’s article? My answers are based mainly on Mr. Zakaria’s conclusion at the end of the article. First, he is right in drawing a distinction between democracy as the foundation of government and constitutional liberalism as its structure; these are distinct characteristic. Second, however, Mr. Zakaria unreasonably relates the lack of constitutional liberalism in supposedly democratic regimes as a threat to Democracy itself and American foreign policy. This, I think, taps a pervasive problem in American foreign policy that implies America must make the world a peaceful place through the propagation of democracy and the gradual movement to liberal constitutionalism. America should not be the arbiter of what good government is, nor should it take on the heavy burden of making sure other peoples around the world are living under liberal constitutionalism. Though his analysis is strong, I feel that his implications are too broad.