Starting first with governance, where you use the American Revolution as an example, you define your terms as follows.

(from bob's world)
I will just add that there is a significant difference between "Effective Governance" and "Good Governance."
....
Good vs Effective must be measured from the perspective of the populace in question. If that populace is not satisfied, then that governance is not good, regardless of how effective it might be.
A few months back, Marc Tyrell and I discussed - with general agreement between the two of us - the failure of the US to gain support from either Canadian language group (from my perspective, the French speakers) in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

There, I used the term "legitimate government" (also in quotes there) in a manner substantially the same as your definition of "Good Governance" - that is, it must be measured from the perspective of the populace in question.

In 1776-1815 Canada, we have the French-Canadians (from my viewpoint), the Scots and English (from Marc's viewpoint) and the United Empire Loyalists who came to Canada after the Revolution (again from Marc's viewpoint). No doubt that that mixed population came to the conclusion that the Crown was both "Effective Governance" and "Good Governance".

So, however you define it formally, we agree that "Good Governance" depends on the "perspective of the populace in question."

Now, moving to the "States", we can examine the perspective of the colonists as a matter of history. All who examine the historical record can agree that there were three groups in the North American colonies (excluding Canada): UELs, Neutrals and Rebels. Where people differ is what %s belonged to each group, variations by region, etc. Which brings me to my practical question.

How do we measure "Good Governance" in a particular country today with the sort of accuracy that would allow accurate intelligence analysis to inform a counter-insurgency effort ? Would you poll the populace to determine the "UELs, Neutrals and Rebels" ? What questions would you ask ? In short, what is your outlline for using the concept of "Good Governance" in the field ?

-----------------------------------
Ending up with Ideology, you and I would have some differences as to what is the "American Ideology" - even in (or perhaps because of) the stripped-down version you present. However, there is little point to two lawyers yammering on about Con Law and the Foundations of our Republic.

To me, there is a more basic issue which goes to the heart of the question - should we be marketing "American Ideology" at all (assuming arguendo that we could agree on what that is); and, if so, to what extent and to what purpose ?

If our focus is on the population of a foreign land, it seems more logical to me to learn the ideologies which are native to that land - and market the indigenous ideology that is most likely to aid us in reaching our endgoal (assuming that we know what that is). E.g., in a given country, communism might be the best answer, simply because the other ideologies are not going to be helpful (even if some of them are closer to "American Ideology").

Note that I have no objection to presenting the "American Ideology" (assuming arguendo as above) to explain where we are coming from - to inform others. Perhaps that is what you are saying; but you seemed to be propounding a broader agitprop agenda than that.