Traditions rest lightly on the American people. With the founding of the Republic two centuries ago, Americans, contemplating the rich continent before them as well as the possibilities afforded by their new Constitution, could anticipate one long experiment in free government and economic progress unrestrained by the lessons of history. Through subsequent decades of predictable, generally unparalleled, material expansion, the shortness of time contrasted sharply with the immensity of the land. Amid changes that crowded one another with unprecedented rapidity, what could one generation say to the next that mattered, especially when the challenges that confronted each generation scarcely seemed to exist in the previous one? It is not strange that the country's citizens generally detected little need for historic guidance in the formulation of attitudes, purposes, and policies. Even intellectual conservatives have often revealed little respect for the nation's past. Still, there is now a widespread lament, shared by writers, scholars, and political leaders, that the country lacks a tradition in foreign affairs commensurate with its power and responsibilities. The only diplomatic tradition widely recognized is that of Woodrow Wilson, but Wilson's views partook of the very exceptionalism that denied the need for examining the past for guidance. Regarding power politics, the central historic presumption of international relations, as an unacceptable, even immoral, foundation for the country's external policies, Wilson insisted that the United States should not and need not follow the rules of traditional diplomacy. Those who reject the Wilsonian approach to international affairs often express regret over the absence of a countering American tradition that might serve as a more effective and realistic guide to national action abroad.