Can Conservatives and Libertarians Form a Coalition to Save the Constitution? – Part III

One of the fundamental differences between conservatives and libertarians is their view of foreign policy. I think they both agree on the importance of national security but disagree on the policies needed to maintain national security.

We have military installations in something like 135 countries but we only have about 5% of the world’s population. That’s not sustainable, any more than the third world banana republic economic policies now being pursued by our government.

In the libertarian view we need to discuss a phase-out of the American military presence in the world and return to something closer to the old Monroe Doctrine. Some folks have occasionally referred to it as a more rubble-less trouble doctrine, i.e. leave us and our hemisphere alone or we will pound the hell out of you and then go away and let you ponder the consequences of messing with us.

However, I am one libertarian who is willing to hold any decision on this matter in abeyance until we have actually gotten on the road to restoring the Constitution and the Republic. I think even staunch defenders of our current military and foreign policy would agree that some phase out is needed to help get us through the current financial situation--along with, of course, large cuts in many other parts of the government.

It seems to me that the bedrock of any cooperation between libertarians and others in the political sphere must rest on a belief in the principles of limited government, a written constitution of contractual nature, and the philosophy of “God given” or “natural” rights. Lately I have had some misgivings about the attitude of some libertarians that makes them sound too much like the anti-war collectivists who simply want to unilaterally disarm.

Make no mistake. These folks desire the destruction of our constitutional republic in favor of some ill defined world collectivist government. I can assure conservatives that libertarians do think the U. S. government must provide for the common defense and are very concerned about the viability of the Constitution and the Republic. We do not favor a world government.

Libertarians Have Very Little in Common with Modern Day Liberals or Progressives. Modern Day Liberals or Progressives Are Socialists.

There has actually been some discussion among a few libertarians of a possible alliance with liberals on foreign policy issues. In my view, today’s liberals are really an eclectic group of collectivists.

I have had discussions with both liberal Democrats and with “democratic” socialists over many years. I have always come away with a disquieting feeling that many of them are really closet totalitarian socialists. They, like their European counterparts, seem to be afflicted with what I call the philosopher king syndrome. They are looking for someone to lead them to Utopia.

I know feelings are not a good basis for solid analysis. However, if you listen to their rhetoric and examine their proposals for policy changes, there is no adherence to limited government or to the philosophy of the Founders beyond some vague commitment to “rights” which seem to expand and contract with passing fashion. One thing seems very clear to me:  they are committed to the concept of a “living” constitution, i.e. you make it up as you go along. This idea is an anathema to libertarians.

Our Foreign Policy Is a Result of the Trauma of WWII.

To be honest, many libertarians, like collectivist Democrats, seem to have a lack of historical perspective when it comes to foreign policy. In my view we still operate under the Truman Doctrine, not the Bush Doctrine or any other doctrine, albeit in time there may be a radical change coming with the new administration and it will then justifiably take on a new name, i.e. the Obama Doctrine.

At any rate, the current doctrine is the same one that sent me to Vietnam in the late 60’s. The overriding theme of today’s foreign policy continues to be our break with the noninterventionist policy that prevailed (with some deviations) prior to WWII. Prior to that war we operated for the most part, except during WWI, under the Monroe Doctrine. You will note, however, that the Monroe Doctrine was not totally noninterventionist--at least with regard to the western hemisphere.

The trauma of WWII radically changed our foreign policy, and that should be perfectly understandable. At the time it may well have been the only way forward. Over the years each administration has placed its own “spin” on this doctrine (some being more aggressive than others). JFK, LBJ, and Reagan were Truman Doctrine heavy while Carter and Clinton were Truman Doctrine light and now Obama is at best ultra light bordering on treason.

There has been a whole foreign policy establishment built up since WWII that is wedded to this doctrine, albeit to different ways to implement it. I have read some articles written by Thomas Barnett, for example. It seems to me that he has taken the Truman Doctrine and ratcheted it up a few hundred degrees and then mapped it over the entire underdeveloped world.

Other folks, like Carter and Clinton, think we need to use the soft approach by talking in the UN, which is a thoroughly corrupt organization and giving countries stuff so they will be nice. The Europeans refer to this with the oxymoron “soft power”.

Admittedly, Obama’s foreign and military policy is only a few months old and hasn’t fully matured, but it seems very suspect. There are many people in his administration who are world government believers and so are his financial supporters like George Soros. They can’t be trusted and would, I believe, sell out the U. S. in a heartbeat. They will end the Truman Doctrine in favor of a new approach of complete submission to the U. N. if they can get away with it.

I have read speeches by Wilson (the first truly internationalist president), FDR, Truman, JFK, et al. Bush and Cheney sounded exactly the same. To postulate anything different, as many collectivist Democrats do, is patently absurd and I think dishonest.

Bush and Cheney believed in the Truman Doctrine because they grew up with it just as I did and unlike me have never questioned it, although Bush did exhibit an aversion to "nation building" prior to 9/11. I do not hold that against them. My father, who served in WWII, firmly believed in it also.

If the U.S. does not guarantee peace and stability, the world will descend into chaos. I actually don’t necessarily disagree with that supposition but I don’t necessarily think it would be impossible to defend the U.S. even if such chaos ensues. However, what libertarians must come to grips with is that for the foreseeable future a very robust national defense will be necessary.

Although the Founders highly recommended that we not enter into “foreign entanglements”, this was not an explicit part of the U.S. Constitution. If we are going to suggest a return to a noninterventionist foreign policy closer to something like the old Monroe Doctrine, we first need to explain to the American people that we understand the history of our foreign policy, and then we need to explain how the US can be defended just in case the rest of the world does not make progress toward peace and prosperity based on our good example.

The conservatives, who are more apt to accept the current military situation, need to honestly assess alternatives to the massive number of military installations we have worldwide. Libertarians, on the other hand, need to understand that if we begin closing bases in the eastern hemisphere, for example, some or all of the savings may have to go to other military expenditures like R&D. We can get a much fairer hearing from conservatives if we acknowledge this fact.

In the interest of national survival a noninterventionist foreign policy requires a realistic understanding of the world we live in. The attitude of the Swiss might be worth reflecting upon.

We also have to address the moral issues involved. What libertarians have to understand about this whole foreign policy paradigm shift at the end of WWII is that once you buy into it you begin to look at the world differently. Other places in the world seem so connected to us that a deviation from our less violent behavior requires action to stop it.

Think of it this way:  If bombs were being detonated daily in Chicago or L.A. as they were in Baghdad not too long ago, would anyone here think it was none of the rest of the country’s business? Would it be OK if Chicago’s mayor Daily was systematically executing people he didn’t like?

There is some logic and moral arguments on the side of conservatives who think the U.S. should police the world and make it "safe for democracy". Think of it in more personal terms. If you knew your neighbor was mercilessly beating his wife every night, would you ignore it because it was none of your business?

What I am saying is that there are moral dilemmas here that cannot be cavalierly dismissed. Now, the collectivist Democrats say we should do all of this policing through the UN, but we know that will not happen. Look at Darfur! Even when UN peacekeeping troops are deployed they often act like organized criminals, thugs, and child molesters!

The collectivists always like to vilify the U. S. military whenever they can get away with it. Any individuals in the U. S. military that commit crimes are prosecuted under UCMJ if caught. The sort of wholesale corruption and barbarity exhibited by U. N. troops from other nations does not occur in the U. S. military. I think the solution advocated by collectivists is a veiled attempt to place the U.S. military under the direct control of the U. N., something that would be an anathema to both libertarians and conservatives.

In making the case for a more noninterventionist foreign policy, libertarians have to acknowledge these moral issues and then argue persuasively that given our resources and political ideals we cannot and should not act alone as the world's police force. But we should and have every right to vigorously defend this country and its constitution.

Conservatives need to make a cost benefit analysis and convince libertarians that all these oversees military expenditures are really worth the sacrifice. The Monroe Doctrine was once the foreign policy conservatives supported. They wanted to bring all the troops home after WWII. Truman won the debate and maintained forces in Europe and Asia that grew ever larger over time. It was a triumph for a philosophy started by another Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.

At any rate, this disagreement can wait until such time that the continued life of this Republic is more secure from its domestic enemies.