RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Once again there is quite the discernment between the paleo and neo camps upon the active assertion of foreign policy. Conservatives like Samuel Huntington advocate an isolationist position under the assumption that cross cultural interactions cause unresolvable conflicts between civilizations. In Clash of Civilizations (or Pat Buchanan in Death of the West) Huntington suggests that radical Islamofacists and what are considered mainstream Islamist regimes have more in common with each other than they do with Western governments and therefore any alliance would be tenuous at best. He argues that these realities need to affect how we approach our foreign policy. That America's interests are best served by supporting the moral institutions here at home and reducing interaction with those we are most prone to conflict with- the Islamic Civilizations. Neo-cons however have a different word view but these are very divergent. Francis Fukuyama wrote a very influential piece in 1992 called the End Of History where he details his postion that eventually the whole world will adopt a liberal-democratic form of government because it rationally makes sense. Fukuyama virtually makes the same arguments as Marx but diverges from him on what the actual end of history will be. The American neo-con position works off some similar assumptions. This is inherent in Bush's continued call to the universal right of human freedom. Neo-cons make the argument that on the human soul is a natural composition that is unchanged and that positive institutions that promote a cultivation of that composition will eventually appeal to all people world wide- beyond their specific culture. It is then argued that tyrannies are naturally at odds with the principles of human freedom and through the forceful promotion of its universal right we can limit the afflictions of vice i.e. terrorism and violence, that erupt from malformed institutional structures. That through various means our government can promote universal principles abroad to (i) protect our homeland (ii) foster freedom the world over. These two worldviews are both conservative but the polarity couldn't be more explicit. What they both aren't is disingenous like the liberal position that supports the use of military authority when it serves their political ends and denounces it when it doesn't. That views all action through the prizm of liberal dogma- that humans are simply only a composition of desires malleable strickly in accordance to our external environment. This position is so hopelessly myopic that the only plausible reason to fight in Iraq is oil- though under the weight of analysis it is implausible that we'd be there fighting this very moment. The only fecund discussion regarding foreign policy is occuring in conservative circles though there couldn't be more disagreement.

As Magellan pointed out, this varies based on what type of conservative you consider yourself to be. Paleoconservatives, for instance, are less focused on foreign involvement with other countries, unless worse comes to worse and it is the only option left. Of course, waiting until your countries destroyed may not be the best way of remaining a super-power. Neoconservatives, however, feel that in order to properly defend the nation, one must be willing to eliminate the threat before it takes action (hint,hint: 9/11) The assumption that being assertive in foriegn policy will turn us into imperialists is ludicrous at best. All it will do is ensure the safety of not only the United States, but democracies everywhere.

This seems to be more of a neocon interpretation of conservatism. Classical conservatives tend to be more isolationist in their foreign policy, while neocons believe in aggressively going out and attempting to shape the world as we'd like to be. For example, the kind of nation building that we are doing in Iraq clearly fits into a neocon interpretation of foreign policy.

Conservatives view foreign policy, defense of the polity against foreign invasion, as an appropriate utilization of the federal treasury. UPDATE: ledzep, I'm not sure that makes it clearer . . .

Let me correct the we you write this, assertive proVactive foreign ploiciy. Add it and I'll give you 5 stars.