This past Thursday, people from all around the country gathered at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington DC. They came to hear the leaders of their movement speak on various subjects including affirmative action, gun rights and limited government. While conservatives in attendance were in general agreement on most of these topics, a sharp divide was apparent on one issue: foreign policy.
[imagebrowser id=4]
The divide was emphasized by Republican dark horse Ron Paul who has drawn a lot of attention for his opposition to what he calls “the American Empire” overseas. Paul was given the stage on Friday and spoke to a large crowd in the main ballroom. Paul took this opportunity to focus on non-interventionist foreign policy which was met with a mix of boos and cheers. One such moment was when Paul said,
Part of the reason why we lost the last election was the foreign policy issue. Generally it is the case the the presidential candidate who makes the case for less war mongering will win the election. And of course Obama took advantage of that…. But the truth is foreign policy hasn’t changed. We should be looking to what George Bush said in 2000. He was strongly critical of the Clinton years, of nation building and being the policeman of the world.
After Paul’s speech there was a panel discussion titled “A Conservative Foreign Policy: What is in America’s Best Interest?” The panel consisted of former congressmen John Hostettler, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute. Bandow was the first to present his case,
I would argue that conservative foreign policy is one that fundamentally defends America, its territory, its constitution, the liberties and values of this very country…. I would argue that our current foreign policy is not a conservative foreign policy. Ultimately what we have today is more or less a Cold War foreign policy without a Cold War….We have roughly 800 military instillation around the world. We have a world full of client states that are welfare dependent upon us, expecting us to defend them and take care of problems in their regions….
Ultimately what I’m arguing is that we need to be ready to defend a republic and not an empire. We want to create a foreign policy consistent with that republic.
Gaffney was up next,
…If history teaches us anything it is that it is best to defend the boarders of the United States by fighting wars on somebody else’s territory rather than ours…. I suggest that we start with a winning foreign policy. Not only winning in the sense that it actually protected this country but it actually returns Republican’s to power…. I believe we must counter totalitarian ideologies that are bent on our destruction. We have no other option, except, of course, to be destroyed. I find that unpalatable and I think we must resist it.
These principles will require conservatives to recognize anew the importance of national security. We have, I think, for too long, even in a period of war, regarded it as something that we might have to do reluctantly…. How do we do that? I think we do it by articulating a vision of the maintenance of military and non-military capability including… intelligence capabilities, financial warfare capabilities, political warfare capabilities, and unconventional forms of warfare as well…. I think that we need to preserve the tools to defend this country from the enemies within, as well as abroad including, I would suggest to you, the Patriot Act.
Finally, Hostettler got up to present his case for a humble foreign policy,
Maybe conservatism can be saved form the electoral abyss. Wouldn’t it be a relief to learn that the one issue that has cost conservatives everything they have gained, at least electorally, since 1994 is not supported by a conservative foreign policy…. A conservative foreign policy is one that is only focused on America’s best interest…. The policy that we may characterize today as nonintervention has its roots in the Monroe Doctrine as inspired by John Quincy Adams. As conservatives we generally attempt to preserve the wisdom of our political ancestors.
Hostettler then recalled George W. Bush’s 2000 debates with Al Gore. Bush critiqued Clinton’s use of the military as the world’s policeman while Gore defended it.
Governor Bush echoed James Monroe when he said the it was Europe’s prerogative to deal with issues in that region of the world. It is neither in Somalia or in Bosnia where our rights are being threatened.
Hostettler then contrasted that view with a statement by conservative pundit Sean Hannity during an interview with congressman Ron Paul during the 2008 presidential debates. Quoting Hannity,
In the case of Saddam Hussen, he was gassing his own people. Are you, Ron Paul, suggesting that we have no moral obligation to bear. You stand by and let that immorality happen? You would stand by and do that? I would not. I think that is immoral.
Hostettler continued,
I’m sure they were Sean Hannity’s lips that I saw moving, but I could have sworn it was Al Gore speaking. If we are to analyze the recent history of popular conservative pronouncements as typified by Sean Hannity’s exchange with congressman Paul then conservatives elect the view that John Jay, John Quincy Adams and James Monroe and Ron Paul as immoral political actors.
After Hostettler was done, there was a brief Q&A with an interesting exchange. A young conservative got up and asked the panelists,
… aren’t things different? Isn’t globalization the key element that conservatives in the past never had to deal with? Whether it is transportation, communication or very powerful weapons. Isn’t that the element that changes everything in regards to the historically conservative non-interventionist position?
Hostettler’s response,
Fundamentally when we suggest that times have changed, that is referred to as Progressivism. That’s not conservatism.
This year’s CPAC drew a record crowd of over 8,000. 1,757 of these participants took part in the CPAC Straw Poll which attempts to gauge the direction of the movement. When asked what issue was most, and second most important, the top three issues were:
1. Reducing the size of the federal gov’t.
2. Reducing federal spending.
3. The war on terrorism.
Even if we interpret the third issue as foreign policy, it is hard to know which approach the participants would advocate. It will be interesting to watch this debate unfold as the Republican party tries to reshape itself.
Photography by Morgan Ashcom
Conservatism being “the paradigm of essences towards which the phenomenology of the world is in continuing approximation,” a “conservative foreign policy” would be whatever foreign policy predominates at the time “conservatives” seek power. The foundational “principle” of conservatism is preservation of the status quo.
Perhaps it depends on who is in power….saw this post a little late but thought you might appreciate this:”Slobodan Milosevic is a bad guy. He's an evil man. Horrible things are happening. I agree with that. Is Bill O'Reilly then saying we go to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan? Where does this stop? And when you look at sheer numbers, 2,000 — and I'm not minimizing death. It's horrible. What this man is doing with ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but sheer numbers — 2,000 killed in the last year versus hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases in other parts of the world. Are you saying the United States should go to all those places?”"But if you know – every mistake we've made up to this point, there's no stated goal. There's no definition of success. All these important things. There's no exit strategy. One mistake after another. Why would you go in deeper when we have not been successful up to this point? That seems to me to be folly.” — Sean “Heartless Isolationist” HannityMore gems here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/2/3/2028…