Justice Kennedy is probably right about the United States not making the case it needs to on Western-style democracy and the rule of law. But I think he's overly pessimistic; the yearning for liberty is a timeless and universal one, and the world is a little bit more free every year.
He also leaves out a few parts of the rule of law:
He said the rule of law has three parts: it must be binding on all government officials, it must respect the dignity, equality and human rights of every person, and it must guarantee people the right to enforce the law without fear of retaliation.
In addition to being binding on all government officials, it must be equally applied in all cases and at all times to all citizens -- mostly black and white, in other words, free of the gray clutter of loopholes and exceptions. It must be coherent, changing with the slow evolution of rules and regulations, based on timeless principles and not subjected to sudden veerings or radical interpretations. And it must be simple and understandable to the ordinary people who must live by its dictates. Only when all of those conditions are met will people have faith in the rule of law, a faith that lets them know what to reasonably expect from one another in a civilized society.
Since all of those conditions are not always met in this country, it is difficult for us to sell the idea to other countries. People such as Justice Kennedy -- the "moderate" whose views on the issues of the day cannot be predicted with any certainty -- are actually part of the problem, so I wouldn't be looking to him for the solution.
