Liberty and the National Interest PDF Print E-mail
Written by Dan Stratford   
Monday, 20 April 2009 04:56
Much has been said as to whether the charms of the Obama Administration can transform American foreign policy from the moralistic black-and-white Bush Doctrine into the State Department’s new “Smart Power” doctrine, emphasizing all of the tools in the proverbial box, with an even-handed consideration of peaceful and military means.

In other words, a more clean-shaven realpolitik.  Specifically, Mr. Obama has endeavored to do things that Mr. Bush would consider abominable, such as giving interviews to Al-Arabiya, signing an order to close down Guantanamo Bay, liberalizing the distribution of federal funds to family-planning groups around the world, and even contemplating an end to the trade embargo with Cuba.  It is imperative to take into account the advantages that this new dawn of realism can afford us, but also to not allow what is urgent to subvert what is important – the belief in the inherent dignity and liberty of the individual that has guided the American Republic from its inception.

As a left-leaning Libertarian myself, I have often struggled with the competing necessities of advancing a foreign policy that keeps our nation’s bosom interests at heart, but also retains the ideals of individual choice, liberty, and a square deal that have built our republic in to the superpower that it is today.  There are, however, Libertarian maxims that must be reconciled with the American national interest.  Non-intervention is a perfect example: A core Libertarian principle, many would question the necessity of acting in the world at all.  Wouldn’t we be better off, some claim, if we simply kept to ourselves, and surrender our foreign policy to the vicissitudes of the world?  My answer to them is a straightforward paraphrasing of Sun-Tzu: “If we know ourselves, and know the world, our victory will not be in question.”  Neglect is never the answer - we have always been an internationalist nation, even if we don’t like to admit it.  Every action in the history of American foreign policy, from George Washington’s farewell address to the Louisiana Purchase to the Monroe Doctrine, were all originally contrived with regards to America’s position on the great global chessboard, not with a preconceived devotion to a specific ideology or religion, despite the fact that ideological and religious sentiment has often been used to justify action.  To this effect, a foreign policy that places moralistic gain over palpable political advancement is doomed to failure, as the bellicosity of the previous administration made evident.

Accordingly, the answer to our current bout of foreign policy woes is not an unyielding reliance on a single doctrine, ideology, or faith, but rather, reliance on cool heads and prudent calculations to advance American interests at home and overseas.  This is precisely why the people are just as important in foreign policy as policy makers themselves, and where the old notion of “politics stopping at the water’s edge” rings hollow.  We have to remember that those at the top, those to whom we trust our lives, fortunes, and collective interest, are just as human as we, and just as prone to human failings.

From Rome to the Third Reich, autocracy has proven to be a form of “bubble governance” – a period of vigorous expansion followed by a catastrophic defeat suffered because, and indeed impelled by, the autocrat’s very human overconfidence.  It is incumbent upon the people to take part in the grand American foreign policy discourse, for republics have been traditionally based on counterbalancing the needs of the masses with the need for order and authority, with the people participating in everything from civic assemblies to demonstrations and riots.  Certainly, these considerations are turbulent, and at times chaotically intangible, but it is imperative to embrace the short-term tumults created by disagreement to capture the long-term gain that will result.  The liberties afforded to us by our Constitution are not just “for show,” so to speak; rather, they are mechanisms of governance, just as courts and congresses are.

Dan can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Comments
Search RSS
Only registered users can write comments!

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Last Updated on Monday, 20 April 2009 05:04