Libertas et Veritas

Between the demise of neo-conservative ideology after President George W. Bush’s departure from the White House, the rise of Ron Paul and Tea Parties and other libertarian influences, there is a quiet but serious and growing debate amongst conservatives (and the Republican party) about which philosophy of national security we should follow. There are undoubtedly remnants of neo-conservatism still within the GOP but these voices have become endangered. Not even Karl Rove, Bush’s much maligned former senior adviser, advocates this position explicitly. 

However, while Republicans and conservatives have largely been unanimous in their opposition to President Barack Obama’s weak foreign policy, the GOP no longer has a definitive national security philosophy. This is not good if the party hopes to take over Congress this year, but this is good if, like me, you believe that the neo-conservative philosophy of the Bush era was an utter perversion of traditional conservative ideas (note the neo in neo-conservative). 

What is a traditional conservative foreign policy? In short it can be described as non-interventionism. As a contrast, neo-conservatism asserts that intervention, including pre-emptive attacks (remember Iraq?), are wholly justified to advance and protect American security and economic interests. Its typifying value is an idolatrous worship of democracy and its spread around the world. 

This philosophy is an abomination of traditional conservative foreign policy which generally seeks to stay out of the affairs of other nations (even wars), so long as events taking place have no direct effect on us. This non-interventionist philosophy is typified by conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan. However, opponents of non-interventionism, specifically neo-conservatives, and war hawks routinely create straw-man arguments, labeling non-interventionism as isolationism, which it absolutely is not. Isolationism seeks to make the United States an utterly self-sufficient nation, bereft of trade and ignorantly blissful of geo-politics. Neo-conservatism seeks to continue and expand the United States’ hegemonic role in the world, through war if necessary. Non-interventionism is the middle path, engaging in mutual beneficial trade and economic opportunities but staying above the fray of world violence while maintaining a strong national security at home. 

History is on the side of non-interventionism, which is the suggested foreign policy enumerated by George Washington in his farewell address when he warned posterity not to engage in entangling alliances. It was also our foreign policy (in varying degrees of fidelity) up until the end of World War II, when some would argue, and I would sympathize, the American Republic came to an end and the American Empire began. 

Chadwick Ciocci, FCRH ’10, is a philosophy major from Trumbull, Conn. He can be reached at cciocci@aol.com