A Small Problem of Definition

What is a "foreign policy conservative?" This question grows out of a conflab held by the usual suspects on the political Right the other day. One of the honchos opined that when "social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives" unite then victory is inevitable.

The Geek has no problem understanding what is meant by the terms "social" and "fiscal" conservative, but he cannot say the same about the final member of the Right Wing Trinity. The notion "foreign policy conservative" is too slippery a critter to grab on to easily or firmly.

The understanding of conservatism in foreign policy has changed--significantly--over the past century of so. In comparison the worldview of the "foreign policy liberal" has changed very little over the same period.

For a long, long while the touchstone of foreign policy conservatives was Washington's Farewell Address with its warnings against "entangling foreign alliances." Through the 19th and well into the 20th Century the policy of the United States eschewed alliances, sought freedom of maritime commerce, resisted foreign encroachment on the Western Hemisphere and pursued open trade unencumbered by trading blocs or akin restraints.

The often and much maligned "isolationists" of the Twenties, Thirties and very early Forties saw themselves as honoring the legacy of Washington, Adams and even Jefferson. The failure of the American entry into World War I to achieve any meaningful result brought both many leaders and much of the American people to support the "isolationist" stance, seeing it correctly as being true to the traditional and (arguably) successful foreign policy of the US.

World War II and the emergence of the Cold War in its immediate aftermath changed all that. Regardless of the best efforts of Robert Taft, Republican Senator from Ohio who was dubbed "Mr Republican" and a few others from the Midwest, the pre-war view of foreign policy conservatism was abandoned.

The end-all and be-all of American foreign policy became anti-Communism with the only meaningful distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" views being the expansiveness of the effort--with the conservatives being more expansive in their goals than the liberals. A secondary distinction between the liberal and conservative approaches was the understanding by each of the role to be played by international institutions. Generally the conservatives supported military alliances while the liberals--at least sporadically--favored the United Nations over the "pactomania" which marked the Truman and Eisenhower years.

Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the understanding of foreign policy conservative has morphed. The latest costume for the conservative in foreign affairs has been that of the neocon.

Neocons, to a much greater extent than any previous brand of foreign policy conservative, with the exception of a handful of fire breathing "roll back" types a half-century ago, are ready, willing and eager to use coercive diplomatic means to achieve desired ends. The neocons have shown themselves to be rarin' to go. Go unilaterally, go violently, go teleologically for the gold as described by their particularly militant ideology,

After over seven years pulling and hauling on the levers of power, the results have discredited the neocons. Even if some of their totems such as reflexive support for Israel have not been overthrown, the neocon lock on foreign policy conservatism has been broken.

This walk down History Boulevard leaves unanswered the question, "what is a foreign policy conservative" today?

The Ron Paul libertarian would respond that a true foreign policy conservative is one who uses Washington's Farewell Address as the basis for policy. No entangling alliances. Commerce with all. War with none (unless war is forced upon us.) Amity with all, or if not amity, at least correct, civil commercial relations.

The neocon would cling to his banner of distrusting international organisations, seeking alliances with the "like minded," supporting Israel without question and being prepared and ready to use force unilaterally. The neocon undoubtedly would argue that the ideological base of policy these past years was correct, but the implementation was wrong.

Well, the Geek acknowledges, those are two possible definitions. Neither is satisfying.

"OK, Geek," you challenge, "stand and deliver! You got something better?"

The Geek, never having been noted for his modesty, avers that he does. But, he is going to back into his definition by way of taking a quick look at the "foreign policy liberal."

The "liberal" view of foreign policy is an expression of the idealism resident in the turn of the 20th Century brand of Progressive Internationalism. It is rooted in part in Protestant Christian views of international morality and just war doctrine. In part it arises from the commercial dictates of a large, expanding and free market oriented economy.

The best exponent of the liberal 1.0 view is Woodrow Wilson. When World War I commenced, he challenged the American people to "be neutral in thought, word and deed." As the war continued and the Germans engaged in new and to American eyes "terroristic" means of war, President Wilson backed away from his extremely idealistic concept of neutrality.

Eventually, for a variety of reasons, Wilson resolved that he could not allow Germany to win the stalemated war. After having won re-election in 1916 as the man who "kept us out of war" and the man who was "too proud to fight," Wilson reversed his course.

In his view of the world and the role of war in human history, Wilson reflected the thinking of many Progressive Americans. War was the single biggest blight upon the human record. Two factors militated against war: democracy and a rule of law.

Without going into a critique of the historical accuracy of Wilson's belief, suffice it to note that the President saw two goals worth the sacrifice of American blood. One was the promotion of democracy in place of the monarchies ruling Germany and Austria-Hungary. The other was to use the peace conference which would ensue at war's end to establish an international rule of law through the creation of a league of nations dedicated to preserving peace (at least the peace between "civilized" countries.)

The League of Nations came a cropper. But, in its abject failure to keep the peace among "civilized" states, it provided the basis for the next go at the liberal ideal in foreign policy. That go is, of course, the United Nations.

The UN remains as a central feature of the "liberal" understanding of foreign policy. Thirty years or so ago the UN was joined by "human rights" as the core of the liberal 2.0 stance on foreign affairs. Increasingly US policy (to say nothing of its formulators and implementers) was judged by its fidelity to the promotion of international consensus and assurance of human rights.

The idea of human rights is inherently idealistic. It also emerges from the progressive agenda of a century ago with its roots in Protestant Christianity and the difficulties existing in a rapidly industialising and demographically changing American society.

Liberal foreign policy 2.x is now associated not only with international organisations exemplified by the UN and its various agencies and a concern with human rights but also by an emphasis on multi-culturalism and cultural relativism. These ideological additions are of recent origin but have an increasing potency with the American elite.

In summary, both the liberal and the conservative (particularly the neocon and anti-communist sorts) are fundamentally ideological in nature. That is to say that each has a view of the world which is simplified and to that extent unrealistic.

The key word is "unrealistic."

As the Geek looks at the sweep of history of foreign relations the critical distinguishing factor between success and failure in this arena is the degree of realism exhibited by a country's foreign policy establishment. In this context realism means an accurate appraisal of the country's interests both national and strategic as well as the threats to those interests and opportunities existing for their enhancement.

A realistic understanding of foreign policy not only takes the world as it is not as policy makers and decider guys might fear it to be or hope it might become. Similarly, the interests of the country both short- and long-term are accurately appreciated and factored in to the policy consideration and implementation. This means that the instruments of national power--both hard and soft--are understood as to their strengths and weaknesses, their potency as well as their limitations.

Complicating the task of realistic foreign policy formulation and implementation here in the United States is the necessity of considering the force of public opinion. The opinion and therefore the will of We the People is not simply a force to be manipulated by shrewd and carefully calculating spin meisters and their ilk. Neither is it a factor limited only to the chattering class or the members of the politically articulate elite.

As events both recent and ancient demonstrate, public opinion must be regarded, must be heeded but can become the uncontrollable 1,000 pound gorilla all too easily and quite unexpectedly. The realistic practitioner of foreign policy must be aware of the limits which public opinion and thus political will place upon him. He must, history demonstrates, neither fear it nor ignore it--and he stokes it at his peril.

Now for a definition. To the Geek's mind a "conservative" in foreign policy must first and foremost eschew ideology as firmly and absolutely as George Washington rejected "entangling foreign alliances." The conservative must understand to his core of being the accuracy of the old British statement that a country has neither lasting friends nor eternal enemies but possesses lasting interests. To which the Geek would append: and eternal values.

The conservative practitioner of foreign policy understands his country's interests and values and proceeds to defend and protect them where necessary and advance them where possible in a careful way giving due regard to the actualities of global politics, the realities of the internal dynamics of nations with which interaction is critical and the looming presence of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The appreciation of interests and context must be joined with an understanding of domestic opinion and will so that critical constituencies can be persuaded to support policy.

Finally, the "foreign policy conservative" never forgets that all the actors in the Great Global Game of foreign affairs have a history. A unique history which both constrains and focuses their individual view of the world, its threats and opportunities.

Nothing emerges from a historical vacuum. Nothing suddenly breaks upon the world's scene free of a past. The conservative knows this. Pays attention to it. To the genuine conservative the first intelligence document needed, perhaps the most important single essential element of information in the forming and executing of foreign policy, will always be a history book.

For good or for ill, the Geek doubts that the panjandrums of the Right who linked electoral success with the need to couple "social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives" understand that foundational reality. But, he doubts they understand the real nature of conservatism anyway.