One of the many challenges of being libertarian is that people sometimes think you’re naive about foreign policy (sort of like the first entry in this 24-part satirical collage of libertarians).
In large part, I think that’s because they confuse non-interventionism with pacifism.
To elaborate on why they’re wrong, I’ve shared some thoughts from Mark Steyn, George Will, and Steve Chapman on the libertarian mindset on foreign policy. And to augment their analysis, here’s John Stossel’s very good synopsis of the clear-headed libertarian approach.
Most libertarians believe our attempts to create or support democracy around the world have made us new enemies, and done harm as well as good. …Some conservatives respond to that by calling us isolationists, but we’re not. I want to participate in the world; I just don’t want to run it. …it’s realistic to acknowledge that America has dangerous enemies, it’s also realistic to acknowledge that going to war is not always worth the loss of money and lives, and that it makes new enemies. War, like most government plans, tends not to work out as well as planners hoped.
And in a version of Mitchell’s Law, he points out that screwups become the excuse for further mistakes.
Occasionally government acknowledges mistakes in domestic policy — but that doesn’t mean it then becomes more efficient. It usually just spends more to try, and fail, to fix the problem. It’s the nature of government. Politicians don’t face the competitive incentives that force other people to make hard decisions. Candidate Obama garnered support by criticizing Bush for costing money and lives through a protracted stay in Iraq. But that didn’t stop Obama from putting more money and troops into Afghanistan. …Our military should be used for defense, not to police the world.
So where exactly does Obama fit? He’s obviously not a neo-con, but how should he be characterized?
My colleague at Cato, Gene Healy, writes that the President has stumbled upon a good guide for foreign policy.
…there’s something to be said for President Obama’s latest foreign-policy maxim: “don’t do stupid stuff.” …Yet “DDSS” has been greeted with contempt by the D.C. commentariat. “How far we have come from the audacity of hope, yes we can” moans David Rothkopf, publisher of Foreign Policy magazine. “DDSS” just isn’t an “elevating notion,” he complains. (Neither, I suppose, is the Hippocratic Oath.) …The concept of avoiding catastrophic error shouldn’t be hard to grasp.
But having a good guide doesn’t mean anything if you don’t live up to it (just like Bush didn’t live up to his pronouncement that he wanted America to have a “humble” approach to the world).
It’s true that Obama has never lived up to the cautious foreign policy maxim he’s coined: launching a destructive “dumb war” in Libya, doubling down on Afghanistan with precious little to show for it. But “DDSS” is a sound, even noble, foreign policy goal, one that can help us avoid further sacrifice of American blood and treasure — even as we try to extricate ourselves from past stupidities.
I add my two cents to this discussion, pointing out in this interview about Ukraine that Obama sometimes veers in the direction of libertarianism. Or at least non-interventionism.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Obama doesn’t genuinely believe in non-interventionism. Instead, he sometimes winds up doing the right thing because of passivity rather than some underlying and principled desire to avoid foreign entanglements.
Speaking of libertarian foreign policy, this Steve Breen cartoon is a pretty good summary of what we’ve been doing in Afghanistan for the past decade.
This reminds me of being in a coalition meeting last decade and somebody from the Bush Administration was saying the mission was a success because tax dollars had been used to build a bunch of schools and sewer system in Afghanistan.
Being the disagreeable type, I pointed out that the federal government shouldn’t even build schools and sewers in America, so why on earth were we doing that overseas.
I thought it was a good point, but the silence in the room reminded me that libertarians aren’t always the most persuasive people.
[…] even though I admit I’m not a foreign policy expert, I sometimes play one on TV. And if you look at this interview from 2013, you’ll see that my views also have been […]
[…] even though I admit I’m not a foreign policy expert, I sometimes play one on TV. And if you look at this interview from 2013, you’ll see that my views also have been […]
[…] In addition to George Will and Mark Steyn, Barack Obama also expressed some support for a libertarian-oriented foreign policy. But only in theory, not in […]
[…] to create more risk for America, whereas the libertarian approach (illustrated by George Will, Barack Obama (in theory but not practice), and Mark Steyn is based on prudence and a Bastiat-like appreciation […]
if you are a thinking adult… this should scare the hell out of you… and promote a reconsideration of long held assumptions about engaging in symmetric warfare or Dulles-style international intrigue…
“Nuclear Special Forces Only BRICS countries will survive”
by Konstantin Sivkov
http://thesaker.is/nuclear-special-forces-only-brics-countries-will-survive/
” Washington plays Russian roulette”
By Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-211114.html
interesting background on current policy…
“Anything that flies on anything that moves”
By John Pilger
http://atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-091014.html
a sad tale………
How Washington made Islamic State
By Tom Engelhardt
http://atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-030914.html
isolationism is not possible in this age of globalization… it’s the bogyman… conjured up by foolish people living in the past… it seems libertarians are more interested in engaging free trade… and mutually beneficial commerce… than they are in military adventures and hegemonic domination of the planet… it seems a reasonable and productive course… but make no mistake… pacifists they are not…
>… what do you expect Americans to do without sewer systems?
Why do you believe that the author expects Americans to do without sewer systems? I searched the article electronically for the word ‘sewer’, and the only place the author mentions sewers being built in America is here:
‘… I pointed out that the federal government shouldn’t even build schools and sewers in America …’
so I assume you’re referring to that remark.
To me, the implication of your question is that (U.S.) Americans would have to do without sewers systems unless their dear elected federal representatives (DERs) have them built.
For decades, my family had its own sewage system consisting primarily of a septic tank and drain field. My father paid for it with his own money and it worked just fine until the city bullied us into paying for and connecting to the city sewer system.
The upshot is that Americans didn’t have to do without sewage systems involving their DERs in the past and they could do it again. If you want to find a receptive audience for the contrary, move over to the Huffington Post.
Russian diplomats amuse themselves by speculating on which body parts John Kerry has had injected with Botox… members of his personal staff are ridiculed by elements of the international press corps… American foreign policy under the Obama administration is a mess… but president Obama’s living is made… for the rest of his term he will likely focus on domestic policy… golf… and keeping the peace with Michelle…
which is a good thing for the people of the world……………………………………..
[…] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/obamas-accidental-brush-with-libertarian-foreign-pol… […]
“…he sometimes winds up doing the right thing because of passivity rather than some underlying and principled desire to avoid foreign entanglements.” Exactly! Which is worrying because this passivity enables Obama to brag about doing the right thing if it works out, but if it looks like hanging back is a bad idea, he will blame his activity on a weak Congress. That’s politics,I suppose, but this guy has nothing to be proud of.
As for Stossel’s clear headed libertarian approach: It’s nice to see him trying to make up for his nanny statist past, and I do like some of his analysis, but I still don’t trust him. He is becoming some sort of Libertarian pundit but I want to give him a little more time to see if it sticks. Maybe he’s just a political contrarian. And maybe he saves his nannyism for medical issues nowadays.
One of the knocks on Obama way back in 2008 was that his foreign policy views were too libertarian.
But even more disturbing, what do you expect Americans to do without sewer systems?