Solving Non-Interventionism’s Tough-Guy Problem
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
In the years since I abandoned my status as a typical neoconservative chicken hawk and adopted Old Right non-interventionism, I’ve been somewhat uneasy with much of the movement’s rhetoric. Specifically, I often find much of the anti-war Right a little too reminiscent of the anti-war Left. That is, many anti-war conservatives and libertarians expend a great number of keystrokes lamenting the American war machine’s innocent foreign victims (see Chronicles or LewRockwell.com just about any day of the week for examples). This is often my own preferred argument. My concern is that this kind of rhetoric does little to grow the non-interventionist movement’s ranks.
The neocons spent the last decade smearing their opponents to the Right as delusional or cowardly “liberals” – when they aren’t calling them anti-Semites, that is. They respond to non-interventionist arguments with inanities like, “freedom isn’t free,” and then tell some heartwarming story about a soldier who lost his leg but still supports the war and hopes the American people are “tough enough to see it through.” It is utterly disingenuous for the epicene dweebs who lead the neoconservative movement to sell themselves as authorities on old-fashioned American manliness. They get away with it because, when it comes to speaking Middle America’s language, the neocons are pretty much the only game in town. Although their message is utterly vacuous, the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Levins know exactly how to frame their arguments in a way that appeals to the GOP base. It’s time for more doves on the Right to learn to do the same.
The tendency to categorize everything into dichotomous categories is a major problem with contemporary American political thought. One idea that unfortunately survived the 60s is that only limp-wristed hippies care about peace, and if you don’t want to be lumped with those indolent, unshaven wusses, you should make it a point to support whatever you think they hate. My suspicion is that a great percentage of the GOP’s voters think very little about American foreign policy, but instinctively believe that only America-hating wimps are against America’s wars, whereas Real Men “support our troops.” These people don’t really care about Iraqi or Afghani civilians, and consider stoically accepting American casualties a sign of “American Grit.” This does not mean they cannot be persuaded by non-interventionist arguments, but doing so will require a message stripped of all traces of humanitarian, we-are-the-world gobbledygook.
Americans have not always associated peace with poltroonery. As far as I know, few people argued that the America First Committee was primarily motivated by spinelessness. Still, since the 60s, the anti-war movement has unfortunately been associated with “Flower Power” and other sissy slogans. Anyone serious about reviving an older, pre-hippy anti-war tradition and making it a major political force would be wise to eschew all rhetoric that conforms to this unfortunate stereotype.
Lamenting the suffering created by harsh economic sanctions and bombing campaigns is a good way for non-interventionist right-wingers to suck up to their leftist friends and colleagues, but so what? The people moved by such arguments are already anti-war. Building a powerful anti-war coalition on the Right will require an entirely different rhetoric. At all costs it must avoid sounding like Code Pink.
Luckily, we already have a pretty good format that has worked pretty well in America’s Red regions, and can be applied to the cause of peace. There is a certain ethos that characterizes a great number of ordinary Republicans – or at least the ordinary Republicans with whom I prefer to spend my time. For the lack of a better term, I will call this frame of mind, “Who-Gives-a-Damn? Conservatism.” This is the type of thinking that leads to support for standard GOP policies, but not for particularly-sophisticated reasons. I have no doubt that a great number of grassroots Republicans oppose ideas like universal health care and more federal spending on public schools because they understand, and find compelling, conservative and libertarian arguments about the utility of such policies. I suspect much of the opposition to these schemes, however, is based on a more primal emotion. That is, a lot of people don’t like Big Government because they don’t want to pay for it and don’t really care about the people it is supposed to help. They don’t care about inner-city standardized test scores or the indigent without health insurance, and wouldn’t want their taxes raised to deal with those issues even if every government program worked exactly as well as it was supposed to work. This line of conservative thinking runs as follows: “Why the f*** should I care? I have my own problems, and don’t want to give a penny to those bums. Screw them.” Though it is at odds with much of the peace movement’s sensibilities, this is the attitude right-wing non-interventionists should display if they seriously want to grow the movement.
When arguing for America’s speedy withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t think it does much good to talk about horrific examples of collateral damage. I think more converts can be won with the following argument: “Who the hell cares about Iraq or Afghanistan? If they want to spend the next fifty years blowing themselves to bits, let them have at it.” The same logic should be used to argue for our withdrawal from our bases in Korea and the Middle East, leaving Russia alone, getting out of NATO, and for finally abandoning the fantasy that we will somehow insure Taiwan’s independence.
The neocons will inevitably counter that this is exactly the kind of thinking that gave us 9-11. I think this argument is losing its power. I suspect few people still believe that our national security is actually tied to women’s suffrage in south-central Asia, or any of the the other ludicrous neoconservative claims. As 9-11 recedes in memory, there are fewer and fewer imbeciles who believe America will be absorbed by the Caliphate if we fail to convince Pashtuns to beat their Kalashnikovs into ballot boxes.
The neocons’ democratist ideology should be treated as just another example of fuzzy-headed utopianism. Bringing “liberal democracy” and “democratic capitalism” to the entire world should be added to the category of ridiculous, never-going-to-happen ideas. The best argument against the neocons is that they are delusional. They are the eggheads dreaming up sentimental, utopian schemes, not us. The non-interventionists should start selling themselves as hard-headed realists who know better than to get mixed up with every damned-fool conflict in the Third World. If countries or ethnic groups on the other side of the globe want to duke it out, well, so much the worse for them, but it’s not our problem. It’s the neocons who think otherwise who are the pie-in-the-sky hippies.
Conservative TV and talk-radio show hosts have a sickening tendency to portray their views as those of practical, hard-nosed tough guys. Perhaps the pro-war types of other eras could realistically make such a claim about themselves, but they certainly cannot do so today. I do not think accusing the pro-war propagandists of being moral monsters has done much good; instead, going forward, I think it will be more effective to call America’s war mongers a bunch of puerile, harebrained fantasists with no inkling of how the real world works.
This kind of rhetoric will not win any accolades from the Left, but it just might win a few more converts on the Right. A movement built on this line of thinking will probably not lead to a Kauffmanesque foreign policy of peace, love, and freedom, but it may at least lead to policies more in line with Andrew Bacevich’s views, which would certainly be a great improvement over what we have now.
And how does this help with responding to us Pro-War Libertarians? We’ll still believe you all to be a bunch of yellow-bellied wimps, who deep down loathe the Military, and have done everything in your power to avoid Military service, and are now just seeking to justify your non-Service later in life.
You make a horrible error in assuming that all Libertarians are Anti-War. Some of us really do want to fight Islamo-Fascism, and guess what? A lot of us Libertarians love the Military and have even served honorably.
Libertarian does NOT! EQUAL WAR WIMP.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican
USN Veteran, 1981-85 (Hon.)
Decorated, including Expeditionary (War Zone)
“Libertarian does NOT! EQUAL WAR WIMP.”
It doesn’t always mean War Hawk either, sometimes it means realism. Sometimes it means recognizing that with trillion dollar defecits, trillion dollar debt, and our dependency on foreign capital, waging war against an ideology is a very costly both in blood and treasure. It means recognizing that differences on foreign policy doesn’t me “hating the troops”, which is BULL and you know it! It means understanding that Empire didn’t protect us in 93, or in 01 and it won’t protect us now.
I believe our focus should have been on Afganistan, and reassessing our relationship with Saudi Arabia (where 17 of the 19 hijackers came from). Rather than lumping together Sunni Iraq, and Shiite Iran into some Axis of Evil like they were ever allies! Like you I believe in a strong National Defense, I believe in the Military, just because non-interventionists disagree on where to send the military doesn’t mean that we’re wimps. I believe that if someone wants to invade Algeria, go nation building in Kazistan or Establish Universal Car Insurance for everybody, they need to answer the most important questions that are rarely ever answered….
How are you going to pay for it?
What is our exit strategy?
How can we raise enough revenue back home to pay for these wars?
I believe that over-extending our military overseas, while spending ourselves into oblivion back home only plays into the hands of our enemies. I believe calling non-interventionists wimps for not agreeing with you only dishonors those including yourself who fought for us to have the freedom to disagree. It Dishonors my Grandfather who fought in WWII, my brother who fought in Vietnam, and my father who marched in the Civil Rights Movement. Libertarianism is a diverse ideology with room for Robert Taft Doves, and Goldwater hawks. There is room for debate, without insults, there is room for some doubt, and certainty. So please lets leave the name calling to the liberals.
I agree Ike43, dissent does not equal treason. We value the lives of our troops enough to realize we shouldn’t squander our most precious resource, our sons and daughters, for political fantasies in the desert. I served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and there realized the War on Terror as prosecuted through the Long War was untenable and played into bin Laden’s hands. How else could a non-state actor bankrupt the world’s sole superpower?
Wrong. “Libertarian” most certainly can mean War Hawk. Here’s a few Libertarian Hawks from history. Perhaps you’ve heard of them:
Dr. John Hospers
Barry Goldwater
Dr. Jack Wheeler
Dana Rohrabacher
Ayn Rand
Dr. Clifford Thies
Mike Dunn (Founder, Libertarian Defense Caucus)
Darlene Brinks
Ryan Christiano (Libertarian McCain for Pres. Staffer)
Peter Ferrara
Dennis Miller
Larry Elder
Neal Boortz
to name just a few…
Eric, I don’t think anyone ever questioned the existence of people who simultaneously love war, don’t care about civil liberties, and call themselves “Libertarians.” Furthermore, pointing out the existence of these ideologically-confused individuals is not an argument.
What needs to be done to burnish non-interventionism is to use historical examples to enumerate all the perils of modern imperialism. Foremost of which is the fact that containing communism was responsible for America’s rigorous involvement around the world. That is not the whole of the story, though, for the U.S had a chance to strangle the Bolsheviks in the cradle but the Wilson administration’s progressive impulse lead to dereliction in thoroughly dispatching them. While there was imperialism before Wilson and WWII, it was not spurred from the argument that the nation’s security was jeopardized, as it would be by the Soviets.
Ayn Rand and Neal Boortz? Are you serious? Wow, I’m impressed.
Why isn’t Alan Greenspan on your list? How about Rudy Giuliani?
Nice appeal to authority BTW, a big list of nothing, just like your hollow broken window libertarianism. FFS, do you have anything coherent to back up your position that can’t be trumped by armed citizens? Do you think there is a real market for aircraft carriers?
and isn’t prowar libertarianism just a new way of saying neoliberal?
Mr. Dondero:
Perhaps you have heard of General Smedly Butler? When I was in the Marine Corps (possibly before you were born), General Butler was one of several names we were taught to speak of with the highest reverence; and he WAS a man’s man. But, I suggest you research his views, many of which are applicable today. Below is a partial from his “War is a Racket.”
he came to these conclusions after being awarded both of his Medals of Honor.
Paul H. Yarbrough
“How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?”
General Smedly Butler
“and isn’t prowar libertarianism just a new way of saying neoliberal?”
eh…I wouldn’t go that far, I mean after all Barry Goldwater was pretty hawkish, but most would agree he was a libertarian. Most of the people who have been called “neoliberal” have been people like Bill Clinton or Robert Rubin, and sometimes Reagan and Thatcher. But I think everyone can agree none of them can really be called libertarians, atleast not in the classical sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberals#United_States
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Neoliberal
“Wrong. “Libertarian” most certainly can mean War Hawk. Here’s a few Libertarian Hawks from history. Perhaps you’ve heard of them:”
Well, as I said above, “Libertarianism is a diverse ideology with room for Robert Taft Doves, and Goldwater hawks.”
I also said at the very begining that it doesn’t “always’ mean war hawk either.
So….what’s your point?
Dr. John Hospers
Barry Goldwater
Dr. Jack Wheeler
Dana Rohrabacher
Ayn Rand
Dr. Clifford Thies
Mike Dunn (Founder, Libertarian Defense Caucus)
Darlene Brinks
Ryan Christiano (Libertarian McCain for Pres. Staffer)
Peter Ferrara
Dennis Miller
Larry Elder
Neal Boortz
I would disagree with some of the people you put on this list, and I would also have to agree with Mr Hawley: “pointing out the existence of these ideologically-confused individuals is not an argument.” And while Barry Goldwater was a Hawk, I’m not certain he would have agreed with the policies of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. I think he would of sided with William F. Buckley, and Brent Scowcroft, before going along with Rumsfeld, especially on Iraq. If you’re include McCain staffer, than Chris was right you might as well just put Giuliani on this list too.
Ah crap! Sorry mangled my words I meant to say “If you include a McCain staffer.”
Mr. Dondero
Thank you for serving our country. And thank you for proving Mr. Hawley’s point.
The Iraq war was, remains, and unfortunately will be looked back upon as an utter waste of time and resources. I’d rather have the 4,000 Americans alive with Saddam in power. If he was such a threat, why didn’t he use his ‘weapons of mass destruction’ on us when we invaded?
Logical arguments aside, you name-calling (” bunch of yellow-bellied wimps”) is the exact reason the GOP lost the election in 2008. We have your kind to thank for handing the election to the Democrats.
Jacob, sorry to hear you’d be happier if Saddam Hussein was still in power brutalizing and murdering the 35 million people of Iraq, with his two greaseball tortourous sadistic sons Uday and Qusay ready to take over.
I guess you should start your own new caucus: “Phone Libertarians for the Return of Saddam Hussein.”
Jacob, I’m a proud Libertarian, been a member of the Libertarian Party for over 25 years, even having served as a member of the Libertarian National Committee for two years.
Consider the name calling of you being a yellow-bellied grilie man coward seeking to justify your non-service in the Military, coming from a LIBERTARIAN! thank you.
George Hawley questions how someone can be “ProWar, and simultaneously Pro-Civil Liberties.”
Real easy George. We Libertarians are opposed to Sharia Law. We don’t want our sexy girlfriends and wives being forced to wear an ugly black burqa from head-to-toe. We don’t want our gay male buddies having their genitals cut off and stuck in their mouths on the public squares. We don’t want our free speech rights taken away cause it might just “offend Allah.” We don’t want marijuana smokers to be thrown in jail for life, or gambling outlawed.
While it’s nice that most conservatives are also anti-Islamo-Fascists, it’s us Libertarians who are truly principled anti-Islamo-Fascists; people like Geert Wilders, and Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs.
Two things, Eric. Do you know how many Muslims live in America? It’s less than one percent of the total adult population. Who, exactly, is going to force your supposed girlfriend to wear a burqa? And even if that is a legitimate concern (which it isn’t), how does killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims on the other side of the world help anything?
Second, you keep calling yourself a libertarian, but I’ve not yet seen any evidence that your views are any different from, say, Jonah Goldberg’s. Please explain what makes you different from any other mainstream Republican, or stop claiming to be a libertarian.
Mr. Dondero
I’m very sorry to hear that you’d rather our men and women in the service be dead rather than a bunch of Iraqi’s. BTW, are you going to start a caucus calling for the invasion of Zimbabwe, Iran, and Darfur? It’d be nice if you had some consistency.
There is again no logic in any of your posts that supports the idiotic invasion of Iraq. You are simply supporting the lies and propaganda you’ve been fed from NewsMax. I’m embarrassed for you. Keep the name calling up, it’s all you have left. I know it must be hard for you to find the courage to call people names on the internet.
“people like Geert Wilders, and Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs.” They are fictional characters, you moron, from Atlas SHRUGGED. By reading your posts, it seems you can’t seem to tell the difference between fiction and reality. And you have suprisingly bad grammar and spelling for a “publisher.” What do you publish, reading materials for retarded people?
One last thing – of the folks you listed, how many of them have military service under their belt? I know for a fact Boortz doesn’t; is he a yellow-bellied “grilie” man too? How about Cheney?
Geert Wilders is very much a real person. He’s a Dutch politician who opposes Muslim immigration into The Netherlands. Though, as far as I know, he is more concerned about Muslims already living in Europe, as opposed to how Muslims live in traditionally-Muslim countries.
Quoth Jacob: “Mr. Dondero, I’m very sorry to hear that you’d rather our men and women in the service be dead rather than a bunch of Iraqi’s.” [END QUOTE]
That’s because, like every other authoritarian collectivist in this country, faux “libertarian” Eric Dondero has no problem whatsoever decreeing what costs are “worth it” for OTHER Americans to pay.
Luke O.
Cryptologic Technician (Interpretive) US Navy, 2000-2004 (honorable discharge)
Decorated, including Arctic Service Ribbon and Navy Expeditionary Medal (2x)
(since it seems to matter greatly to him)
[...] George Hawley at Post Right: In the years since I abandoned my status as a typical neoconservative chicken hawk and adopted Old Right non-interventionism, I’ve been somewhat uneasy with much of the movement’s rhetoric. Specifically, I often find much of the anti-war Right a little too reminiscent of the anti-war Left. That is, many anti-war conservatives and libertarians expend a great number of keystrokes lamenting the American war machine’s innocent foreign victims (see Chronicles or LewRockwell.com just about any day of the week for examples). This is often my own preferred argument. My concern is that this kind of rhetoric does little to grow the non-interventionist movement’s ranks. [...]