Welcome this new era of liberty in the Arab world. From Iraq to Kuwait to Lebanon, the political ferment is real. None of this change would be happening without the firm commitment of George W. Bush, the U.S. president. And none of it will last without big changes in the way America does business overseas.

In the president’s second inaugural address and the 2005 State of the Union speech that followed, Mr. Bush outlined his theme: “America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” Meanwhile, back at the office, U.S. officials agitated to postpone the Iraqi elections.

Even though this attempt to stick a spoke in Iraq’s democratic wheel failed, the problem persists. Many in America’s foreign policy bureaucracy, including the vast foreign service that runs day-to-day relations abroad, view the president as a fuzzy-minded idealist. Their views, ranging from skepticism to aggressive disagreement, have been aired anonymously in the American press regularly since the Iraq war.

The disconnection between the foreign policy general and his troops means that the U.S. sends mixed signals not just to the dictators it would dislodge but also to the democrats it would promote. Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, cancelled her maiden trip to Egypt in February after the autocratic regime of Hosni Mubarak threw a political opponent in jail.

Message received, up to a point. Mr. Mubarak released his challenger (although the charges against him remain) and trumped Ms. Rice by amending the Egyptian constitution to allow candidates to run against him in presidential elections later this year. In fact, Mr. Mubarak’s “generosity” does not count for much. Political parties must still be licensed by the government and their funding and campaigning are tightly controlled.

However, Mr. Mubarak’s gesture appeared to satisfy. There were approving noises from Washington. Senior officials murmured that it would be as well if economic reform preceded political change in Egypt. Barely a month later, Egypt and the US signed an agreement offering $900 million in U.S. aid.

So imagine Mr. Mubarak’s surprise when Ms. Rice showed up in Egypt recently and exhorted him to “abandon the excuses that are made to avoid the hard work of democracy.” And he thought things were going so well.

Ms. Rice is right. The problem with evolution (versus violent revolution) is that it requires constant pressure on the dictator to ensure he keeps the door open to reform. That is not a job for the president or secretary of state. It is a job for foreign policy ground troops but, all too often, they are not interested or cannot make the time in the rush of day-to-day diplomacy.

As a result, when the secretary of state or the president champions a political prisoner, he is freed while others languish. It means that when politicians lambaste Saudi Arabia for failing to grant basic rights, their message stops resonating the moment they leave town. It means that reformers are left wondering why their cause waxes and wanes in importance to the U.S.

Reformers from Libya to Bahrain to Lebanon and beyond have seen compatriots go to jail while their leaders enjoy a warm handshake. They have seen international efforts to promote political reform deliver few benefits. It is little wonder they feel betrayed.

The U.S. government must change its diplomatic priorities. If reform is first, then it must come first every day. Political, civil and religious rights should be on everyone’s agenda, all the time. There must be a cost to governments that do not follow through on promised reforms (Egypt), cancel elections (Palestine) or hide behind the threats of terrorism and Islamism to avoid risking their necks (Saudi Arabia). U.S. embassies abroad need to get with the program as well and stop undercutting Mr. Bush’s policies.

Reformation and renaissance in the Middle East is a monumental task. The U.S. does not want to do the job; it wants to help reformers in the region do it themselves. It is an admirable ambition, only achievable if Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice recognize that this is a full-time job for the U.S. government. All of it, all the time.

Danielle Pletka is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at AEI.