Recently, I wrote a cover
story for the American Conservative making two
arguments:
1.) Rand Paul’s victory shows that, in the current political
environment, a principled economic and social conservative who
runs a good campaign can win mainstream Republican support
despite deviations from the party line on foreign policy and 2.)
There are tendencies within the mainstream right — ranging from
fiscal conservatism to Jacksonian skepticism of nation-building
— that lend themselves to certain arguments for a less
interventionist foreign policy, though not necessarily the kind
of arguments that non-interventionist conservatives tend to make.
Daniel Larison is
skeptical, pointing to the inconsistencies of various
Republicans who have criticized war-making under the Obama
administration. All valid concerns, especially since Afghanistan
seems to be the war that is least popular among Republicans right
now despite being the least objectionable war from a
paleoconservative perspective (at least initially).
I’d only offer two rejoinders. The first is that any successful
political movement is going to include its share of opportunists.
In the 1990s, the last time conservative Republicans opposed wars
and nation-building exercises in large numbers, you saw a mix of
people who were genuinely trying to move the right’s foreign
policy in a less interventionist direction (Pat Buchanan, Ron
Paul, John Hostettler), partisan Republicans who simply disliked
“Democrat wars,” GOP members of Congress trying to preserve their
legislative power agaisnt a Democratic executive, and hawks who
didn’t think Haiti and Kosovo were the best use of our military
in light of other threats. That kind of coalition-building is
necessary in practical politics.
Second, full-throated non-interventionism is not going to be the
majority position among conservative Republicans in the
foreseeable future. Reintroducing ideas like costs, unintended
consequences, the intractability of various foreign conflicts,
and even the level of restraint anticipated by the
Powell-Weinberger Doctrine would all be steps in the right
direction for conservatives who reject the idea of benevolent
global hegemony.
S.L. Toddard| 7.27.10 @ 8:56AM
Hear, hear!
Derek Leaberry| 7.27.10 @ 9:43AM
Mr. Antle pretty much explains why the Republicans do not deserve power, at least at the presidential level. A majority of Republicans support an open-ended war in the Middle East even with the country running up $ 1.4 trillion yearly deficits. Not only is the mindboggling, it is not even conservative.
Warrior | 7.27.10 @ 9:58AM
Maybe we can get an elected representative other than Ron Paul to call for the declaration of war before we actually go to war. What you are calling less interventionist, many of us call Constitutional.
Red Phillips | 7.27.10 @ 12:39PM
As a voice of "full-throated non-interventionism," I agree. I will continue to make the case for full-throated non-interventionism, but I see any movement our way as positive. What is clear is that all the movement, even if it is not to pristine non-interventionism, is in our direction. The aggressive uber-hawk fear peddling wing is shrinking. It isn’t making new converts. There is just very little audience, outside their own echo chamber, for that message.
BTW, Joseph Farah's change of heart is big news. If he can come around, anyone can.
Lucas| 7.27.10 @ 5:09PM
"Jacksonian skepticism of nation-building"
Who Jackson is the author referring to?
Andrew? I knew Jack was anti-fed, I didn't know he was also anti-nation building, which would be good by the way.