Neolibertarianism/Isolationism is Not an Option

Isolationism is Not an Option

by Bruce McQuain [1]

In the 18th century, Thomas Jefferson famously said that the US should strive for “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Jefferson would probably be keenly disappointed that his advocacy for isolationism has, for the most part, been ignored by subsequent presidents. Still, Jefferson’s dictum has become the lynchpin of present day libertarian and Libertarian Party foreign policy.

There are serious defense and security concerns that arise from such a policy today. In Jefferson’s day, America was protected by two very wide oceans. Mounting an effective and sustainable invasion of America was beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of nations. Self-defense was relatively easy and inexpensive for the US. In addition, America had an economically self-sufficient, agrarian economy. So, the Jeffersonian approach to foreign policy made some sense then. Today, however, it would be an extremely dangerous way to conduct foreign policy.

Libertarians are often accused of being Jeffersonian isolationists who want the US to withdraw inside its borders, stay out of international relations, refuse entangling alliances, and adopt a policy of non-intervention in others’ affairs. But various libertarians such as David Bergland, author of “Libertarianism in One Lesson”, claim that in reality “libertarians oppose isolationism”. He contends, “Some people mistakenly confuse neutrality and non-intervention with “isolationism””.

Unfortunately, that claim isn’t reflected in the Libertarian Party’s platform foreign policy plank which describes it in terms of classic isolationism: “The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade and travel.”

Why then do Neolibertarians eschew this stance on foreign policy? Because the world and America’s role in it has changed dramatically since the 18th century. Isolationism may have made some sense in a time where wide oceans and limited technology gave a young America an almost insurmountable protective geographic barrier, and the country was both agrarian and self-sufficient. But those conditions no longer apply.

Sufficient argument, therefore, can be made on purely pragmatic grounds that isolationism-or its libertarian redefinition as “neutrality and non-intervention”-is an impractical and dangerous policy today, and that its implicit assumptions rest upon a false premise.

The premise, as Bergland states it is that “the globe is covered with governments of sovereign nations each having authority over their own area”. He further states that the United States, or any nation, has no right to interfere in the business of another sovereign nation. Per libertarian foreign policy, it’s none of our business what another nation does, be it war with a neighbor, extermination of its own people, or any other action which we find unpleasant.

Such a policy premise holds the sovereignty of nations above the sovereignty and rights of individuals. It places all nations on the same moral plane, be they a democracy or a totalitarian regime. That premise seems to be inconsistent with libertarian philosophy.

In the libertarian view which Bergland represents, one country’s expansion into another country by force of arms would be none of our concern. As a neutral, our only concerns would be peaceful trade and self-defense, with the latter only implemented when the aggressor was actually on our borders.

Thankfully US policy makers eschewed this policy during the Cold War with Soviet Communism, and formed alliances by taking sides with our ideological friends against our ideological enemies. As a result, a threat to our sovereignty and freedom-as well as a threat to the rest of the world-was thwarted. Adopting a self-defeating policy of non-intervention would have allowed the Soviet Union a free hand to pursue its hegemony.

Ironically, Bergland characterizes the collapse of the USSR as one of the most important events in our lifetime before launching into a critique of the very interventionist foreign policy principles which led to the collapse. That sort of ideological blindness and unwillingness to rethink its principles has made libertarianism a less attractive alternative to the major parties.

Neolibertarians acknowledge the realities of the world today, not the 18th century. Practical foreign policy in a neolibertarian world includes engagement with like-minded democracies through treaties and alliances. It also encourages peaceful and free trade among those nations. Neolibertarian foreign policy rejects the equal sovereignty premise of traditional libertarian foreign policy and differentiates between free countries and oppressed countries. It also holds as its highest standard the rights of free people, not the ’rights’ of nations. Neolibertarians have no problem with condemnation of and, if necessary, intervention in those oppressed countries, if they pose a threat to our nation’s security or citizens. Neolibertarian foreign policy also reserves for the US the right to preemptively act against any threat anywhere in the world in the name of national self-defense or critical self-interest.

A foreign policy that consists of hiding in the 18th century is both dangerous and impractical. Instead, the Neolibertarian policy is to engage the world proactively in order to maximize liberty and freedom in the 21st century.