Libertarians and conservatives share a common enemy. Whether it is described as liberalism, progressivism, collectivism, or socialism; whether its adherents term themselves liberals, progressives, Democrats, or democratic socialists — the agenda is the same: paternalism, universal health care, free college tuition, more gun-control laws, social justice, green energy, environmentalism, climate-change alarmism, affirmative action, government-mandated family leave, government-funded child care, more antidiscrimination laws, privileges for organized labor, an ever-increasing minimum wage, increased taxes on “the rich,” easier access to welfare with fewer work requirements, and abortion on demand (at taxpayer expense for low-income women). The result of all of these things is a larger and more intrusive government and increased government regulation of the economy and intervention in society.
Conservatism
Although libertarians and conservatives may share a common enemy, this does not mean that the two groups are ideological cousins — no matter what President Ronald Reagan (1911–2004) thought. In a 1975 Reason magazine interview, Reagan said: “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism…. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” The reality, of course, is that conservatism desires less government interference, less centralized authority, and more individual freedom in just certain areas, only on select issues, and concerning just some subjects. Conservatives are big on reforming government programs or replacing them with other government programs instead of repealing them lock, stock, and barrel. Just because there is some overlap in the desires of conservatives and libertarians and in the progressive policies that they oppose doesn’t mean that conservatism and libertarianism are two sides of the same coin.
The other problem with conservatives is that they often say the same things as libertarians but with a somewhat or entirely different meaning. Consider the conservative mantra of fidelity to the Constitution, federalism, limited government, private property, less government, lower taxes, less regulations, individual freedom, fiscal conservatism, traditional values, the free market, free enterprise, and a strong national defense.
Libertarians certainly believe that the federal government should actually follow its own Constitution and the federal system of government put in place by the Founders. Limiting the government, lowering taxes, and reducing regulations are music to the ears of libertarians. Individual freedom and private property are the twin pillars of libertarianism. There is nothing inherent in libertarianism that is in opposition to fiscal conservatism or traditional values. Free enterprise and the free market is the cry of every libertarian. And libertarians undoubtedly believe in the legitimacy of defense against aggression.
But regardless of how many times they recite their mantra, conservatives don’t follow the Constitution in many areas. They believe in federalism except when they don’t. The only limited government they seek is a government limited to control by conservatives. They don’t accept the freedom of individuals to do anything that’s peaceful. They don’t believe in the inviolability of private property. They think traditional values should be legislated by government. Fiscal conservatives they are not. They don’t yearn for free enterprise and a free market in everything. And conservatives confound national defense with national offense.
The conservative mantra is simply a ruse to persuade grass-roots conservatives to continue to vote Republican in order to keep those evil Democrats out of office.
Conservative internationalism
In the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), appeared an article by CFR member Kori Schake titled: “The Case for Conservative Internationalism: How to Reverse the Inward Turn of Republican Foreign Policy.” Schake — a Republican who endorsed Joe Biden for president — had a long career in the federal government, holding numerous positions in the State Department and Defense Department, as well as serving on the National Security Council (NSC) under President George W. Bush. She is currently a senior fellow and director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank, where her research areas are national security strategy; NATO, Alliances, and U.S.-led international order; and threats to the liberal international order.
In her article, Schake begins by bemoaning the “disorder” of the Republican Party, which is “especially evident — and dangerous — in the realm of foreign policy.” She explains what things were like before the Republican Party went astray:
For decades since 1952, the Republican Party had a fairly clear international vision: promote American security and economic power while supporting the expansion of democracy around the world. That meant providing for a strong military, cooperating with allies to advance shared interests, and boosting U.S. power in international institutions. It meant advancing free trade, ensuring fair international competition for U.S. companies, and promoting the rule of law in immigration policy. And it meant opposing authoritarianism, especially when autocrats directly challenged U.S. interests.
She believes that “Republicans’ commitments to these principles have weakened dramatically.” Most of this is the fault of Donald Trump, who “whiplashes between a wish to project U.S. power abroad and isolationism” and “has vowed to withdraw from NATO, end imports of Chinese goods, deploy the U.S. military onto American streets to fight crime and deport immigrants, and ‘drive out’ ‘warmongers’ and ‘globalists’ from the U.S. government.” But “other conservative leaders — such as Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis and the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy — express outright hostility toward sustaining the United States’ international commitments.” Schake also points out that Republican politicians are split over U.S. aid to Ukraine and that there has been “an apparent isolationist turn” among GOP constituents. She even references a 2023 Civiqs Daily Tracking poll that “found that 77 percent of registered Republican voters agree that the United States should become less involved in solving problems overseas.” She concludes that “it does not appear to be an auspicious time for traditional Republican internationalism to regain its influence over the GOP” and acknowledges that “it might not even seem urgent that Republicans develop a clear foreign policy at all.” After all, in an August 2023 Wall Street Journal poll of likely Republican voters, “foreign policy had sunk to GOP voters’ lowest priority among 14 policy positions.”
Nevertheless, Schake believes that “foreign policy should be an urgent priority.” To strengthen her case, she links her conservative internationalism with a strong U.S. economy:
The world is growing more dangerous, and foreign policy bears directly on the state of the domestic economy and, thus, Americans’ very livelihoods. Extending U.S. power abroad — and U.S. influence in international institutions such as NATO — deters foreign aggression that might otherwise disrupt the U.S. economy.
The United States needs a strong and vibrant Republican Party. To make a more coherent case for how it would solve the country’s problems, the party will have to clarify its foreign policy focus. Traditional conservative internationalism remains the best way to protect U.S. national security and steward the economy.
Americans “need Republicans to advance a theory for what is happening in the world and how the party intends to protect the country and secure Americans’ prosperity.” And “no such theory can be developed without a clear foreign policy.”
At the heart of Schake’s “clear foreign policy” is increased U.S. military spending because of the “U.S. government’s neglect of the military.” Although President Biden’s “$842 billion budget request” for the Department of Defense (DOD) was “the largest such request in U.S. peacetime history,” and “represented a 3.2 percent increase in nominal spending,” because of inflation, “the request amounted to a real reduction in defense spending for the second year in a row.” (Only in the mind of a conservative internationalist is an increase in defense spending actually a cut.) So, “unless the U.S. government radically revises its willingness to fund defense, it will fail to deter its adversaries and could very well lose its next war.”
Schake’s “clear foreign policy” also includes “continuing, even increasing, U.S. assistance to Ukraine,” and there is a “strong conservative case” that can be made for doing so because “60 percent of U.S. assistance to Ukraine goes to U.S. companies that make the weapons sent to Kyiv.” In addition to putting more restrictions on China, the United States should rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership; “engage in more meaningful trade talks with Indonesia, the Philippines, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom”; negotiate and secure “the ratification of other trade treaties”; aid “countries fighting to preserve their liberty”; and “properly regulate immigration” because “immigration policy has a crucial connection to foreign policy and to the United States’ economic health.”
The conservative internationalism advanced by Schake is nothing short of a foreign policy of managed trade, interventionism, and militarism. Conservatism is at its worst when it comes to issues relating to foreign affairs and the military.
Libertarian internationalism
The opposite of conservative internationalism is not isolationism. This is just how conservative advocates of an interventionist and militaristic foreign policy smear their opponents. If the United States actually did isolate itself from every other country, then it would refuse to have allies, to practice diplomacy, to participate in the Olympics, to make treaties, to issue visas, to send mail to or receive mail from foreign countries, to allow imports and exports, to accept foreign students at its universities, to permit cultural exchanges, to exchange diplomats, to allow emigration and immigration, and to extradite criminals. It is countries like North Korea and Myanmar that are isolationist countries.
No libertarian advocate of a noninterventionist foreign policy wants the United States to avoid engagement with the rest of the world. All libertarians (and others who are truly noninterventionists) want is no bombings, no invasions, no occupations, no foreign wars, no preemptive strikes, no destruction of infrastructure, no peacekeeping missions, no enforcing UN resolutions, no overseas U.S. military bases, no policing the world, no garrisoning the planet, no assassinations, no imperialism, no meddling, no regime changes, no nation building, no security commitments, no spreading democracy at the point of a gun, no searching for monsters to destroy. Since when does not supporting an aggressive, belligerent, interventionist, and meddling foreign policy mean that you are an isolationist?
Libertarians believe in internationalism just like conservatives claim they do. But their idea of internationalism is quite different.
Libertarianism internationalism favors peace and friendship with all nations. No sanctions and embargoes should be imposed against any country. The United States should not seek to impose its values on other nations or use foreign aid to bribe the governments of other countries to do its bidding.
Libertarian internationalism favors neutrality. The United States should not take sides in civil wars within countries or wars between countries. The United States should not enter into entangling alliances. The United States should not give military support to one country engaged in war with another. The United States should not concern itself with who controls the shoals, reefs, and rocks in the South China Sea or which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away.
Libertarian internationalism favors unilateral free trade. Schake bemoans President Biden’s “protectionist economics” and “buy America” restrictions — ideas that Republicans are increasingly adopting. But then she faults him for failing “to recommit to ratifying the United States’ accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership” and allowing “Beijing the benefits of free trade without requiring it to play by the rules.” She bemoans “the consequences of unequal trade with China” and maintains that “trade deficits with China cost the United States 3.7 million jobs” between 2001 and 2018. Many conservatives talk about free trade, but their support of trade organizations, trade agreements, trade treaties, “fair trade,” and trade restrictions shows that they believe in government-managed trade, not actual free trade.
Libertarian internationalism favors the free movement of people. Although conservatives give lip service to the movement of goods, they openly want to restrict the movement of people when they support things like travel bans to Cuba and immigration checkpoints far from the border.
Libertarian internationalism is the foreign policy of the Founders. Take, for example, Thomas Jefferson:
- We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe.
- I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment.
- Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.
In addition to the warning in his Farewell Address against “permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” George Washington also said: “Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.”
Contrasts
There are a number of contrasts that can be pointed out between conservative internationalism and libertarianism internationalism.
Conservative internationalism is interventionist; libertarian internationalism is noninterventionist.
Conservative internationalism wants all military operations on the table; libertarian internationalism wants to limit the military to defensive actions only.
Conservative internationalism believes in managed trade; libertarian internationalism believes in free trade.
Conservative internationalism believes that the United States should police the world; libertarian internationalism believes that the United States should only police itself.
Conservative internationalism puts the interests of the American government first; libertarian internationalism puts the interests of the American people first.
Conservative internationalism seeks ever-increasing defense budgets; libertarian internationalism sees no need for the United States to spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined.
Conservative internationalism believes that the U.S. Navy should sail around the world; libertarian internationalism believes that our two vast oceans should be our first line of defense, as Thomas Jefferson once pointed out.
Conservative internationalism wants the United States to go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy”; libertarian internationalism wants the United States to be “the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.”
Conservative internationalism wants an empire of U.S. troops and bases around the world to project military power; libertarian internationalism wants U.S. troops brought home and bases on foreign soil closed to project peace.
Conservative internationalism believes in U.S. hegemony; libertarian internationalism believes in harmony.
Conservative internationalism wants the United States to dominate the UN; libertarian internationalism wants the UN to serve only as a forum for dispute resolution.
Conservative internationalism believes in using the CIA for nefarious purposes; libertarian internationalism believes that the mission of the CIA should be intelligence gathering only, if it is to exist at all.
Conservative internationalism has room for sanctions and embargoes; libertarian internationalism demands free commerce.
Conservative internationalism is nationalistic; libertarian internationalism is cosmopolitan.
Conservative internationalism tolerates no dissent; libertarian internationalism has room for an individualistic foreign policy.
Conservative internationalism results in distrust and hatred of the United States; libertarian internationalism results in reliance on and admiration of the United States.
Conservative internationalism is always on the lookout for new enemies to justify U.S. military buildups; libertarian internationalism minds its own business.
Conservative internationalism supports restricting the overseas travel of Americans; libertarian internationalism supports the free movement of Americans.
Conservative internationalism wants the United States to enter into entangling alliances; libertarian internationalism wants the United States to remain neutral.
Conservative internationalism is just a smokescreen for an interventionist foreign policy with all the trimmings.
This article was originally published in the March 2024 edition of Future of Freedom.
