Equal justice under a rule of law, secure rights for minorities, a media that isn't phony, viable political parties, an independent judiciary, and…

…limits on executive power. All that is necessary to fulfill democracy's promise, writes Daniel Henninger.

As the Bolton nomination makes clear, these grave and mortal debates over foreign-policy prescriptions often take obscure turns, such as whether the nominee ever threw a manila envelope at an adversary. So it's helpful that V-E Day should connect us to past political behavior of real relevance, such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 or the Yalta Agreement of 1945, both of which Mr. Bush criticized …

Diplomacy has its uses, as in negotiating free-trade agreements, but I think that an appraisal of the politics of the 20th century would not conclude that diplomacy would have proven better than overwhelming force, or its threat, at stopping several formerly civilized societies from becoming the homicidal hells Mr. Bush described in his Latvia speech. But is there a better way than mobilizing men at arms?

George Bush gave his answer to that question in Riga, and his answer--a political template for the future--deserves more attention than re-debating the road to ruin at Yalta.

Atop the Bush template sit the oft-repeated words "democracy and freedom." This is the D&F model. The standard criticism of Bushian D&F is that it is too idealistic. But the Bush speech explicitly admits that point, arguing that "it does not end" with independence and elections. Democracy's promise, he insists, is gained only by equal justice under a rule of law, secure rights for minorities (a 21st century sine qua non), a media that isn't phony, viable political parties, an independent judiciary and limits on executive power.

Too ambitious? As opposed to what alternative? The status quo? The status quo is called managing festering grievances, aka, the 20th century. Been there, died doing it.