WASHINGTON — Huddled around tables in a private Georgetown garden, we waited for the main event, the reason that we had given up our evening: the promise of a bipartisan discussion on the major foreign-policy issues facing the United States.

Mere weeks before, I had written a column expressing the need for such an approach in the American presidential campaign – and generally in U.S. politics – that prompted numerous responses, most of them pessimistic. One reader said, “Fat chance.” Another made a similarly discouraging comment, “Dream on.”

Well, sometimes dreams come true. The featured speakers at this gathering were familiar faces on the American political scene, two senior statesmen who had left their marks on various administrations, one Democratic and the others Republican. Finally, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser under former President Jimmy Carter, and Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under former Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, took the stage. At that point, I was briefly transported into a realm of serious, informed, reasoned, intelligent, respectful, entertaining debate. Their exchange, moderated by David Ignatius, a columnist and editor at The Washington Post, contained agreement, disagreement and agreement to disagree.

Most important, though, the conversation moved ahead in ways that I had not observed in the political arena for years. In the end, I felt that Brzezinski and Scowcroft had substantively begun the exploration of solutions to issues such as the war in Iraq, the Arab-Israeli conflict and global terrorism. Given more time and the input of other similarly minded and talented people, they would have been well on their way toward developing proactive, bipartisan policy recommendations on each topic.

Naturally, I was eager at that point to pick up a new book, America and the World, which is a series of conversations between Brzezinski and Scowcroft, also moderated by Ignatius, on the future of American foreign policy.

In a chapter titled The Politics of Cultural Dignity, Scowcroft talked about the nation-state, including its changing status and diminishing role. “The major challenge is that the whole world is changing at once, and this so-called information age is literally transforming the world we all know and the institutions with which we are familiar,” he said, with the result that more people have become aware and politically active.

Brzezinski agreed, adding that “the traditional problems of power and geopolitics are still with us.” He indicated that the global political awakening is creating widespread intolerance, impatience with inequality, jealousy, resentment and more rapid immigration. Brzezinski further emphasized that there is “a craving for respect for differentiated cultures and for individual dignity.” Complicating the discussion are environmental troubles, the threat to the human condition associated with climate change and the potential for deliberately inflicted massive lethality, he said.

To Scowcroft, politically responsible people have not fully understood the urgency of taking action in this clashing-worlds arena. He believes that a spotlight on human dignity would position the United States to deal more effectively with the most pressing issues.

So, what does all of this translate into regarding the next U.S. president?

In general, Scowcroft recommended a review of the structures in use for national-security purposes, which were designed for the Cold War, not our rapidly evolving world. He argued for a system to manage issues that cut across traditional boundaries. Brzezinski, for his part, recommended an effective, centralized, strategic planning mechanism. He would start with mission-oriented presidential task forces assigned to climate change, Middle East conflict (incorporating the Arab-Israeli dispute, Iraq and Iran) and alliance relationships. Scowcroft also urged a Middle East focus, but would break it into parts: the Palestinian question, Iraq and Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps Pakistan.

To improve U.S. relations with the world, Brzezinski suggested outlawing torture and otherwise burying the “culture of fear.” Scowcroft recommended that the United States acknowledge its imperfections, while simultaneously encouraging the viewpoints and advice of other nations through strategic communication.

And then they turned to the issue of the increasingly polarized debate in Washington. Brzezinski said that it is essential for the next president to make a deliberate effort to create bipartisanship, including through appointments. Scowcroft said simply that when faced with a threat, we must subordinate partisan differences. He urged the next president to resume the practice of calling congressional leaders in just to talk, and bringing the opposition into the cabinet room for discussions.

I may be dreaming in my hope that some of this constructive atmosphere might spill over into the remainder of the presidential campaign. But, in truth, the American people deserve – and should demand – no less.