I recently read a book from one of my favorite authors, Niall Ferguson. It was a very different take on American foreign policy compared to another book I read several months ago called "The Empire Has No Clothes" by Ivan Eland.
In it, Eland makes a conservative case against empire, and basically says our own global military presence and actions do the reverse of their intention... that they threaten our own interests. He claims that we'll be freer, more secure, and more prosperous if we reduced our military involvement overseas.
Although conservatives in general often thrive on our military, there has been a long tradition of semi-isolationism within the American Right, exemplified by the Pat Buchanan wing of conservatism as well as many libertarian-type leaning Rightists. But there is also a brand of conservatism that sees things a bit differently.
There are many conservatives, probably mostly derived from former cold warriors, who notice a unique situation: As the sole world hyperpower, the US is in an unparalled position to impose our preferred values and interests throughout the world.
Niall Ferguson's book "Collosus" deals with this position. Here's a good review of the book that explains the thesis well. I encourage anyone to read the review to gain understanding on this position. It's a fascinating book.
As a conservative, I find the various positions interesting, although I come out of the interventionalist side. I am wondering what other people, and conservatives in particular, think about this foreign policy split. I am trying to stay away from an Iraq debate to look at the larger picture, so hopefully the people consumed by Bush-hate can leave their two-line talking points in another thread. Maybe we can have this discussion with even mentioning Iraq or Bush? It would be nice to avoid partisan hackery and talk ideas.
In it, Eland makes a conservative case against empire, and basically says our own global military presence and actions do the reverse of their intention... that they threaten our own interests. He claims that we'll be freer, more secure, and more prosperous if we reduced our military involvement overseas.
Although conservatives in general often thrive on our military, there has been a long tradition of semi-isolationism within the American Right, exemplified by the Pat Buchanan wing of conservatism as well as many libertarian-type leaning Rightists. But there is also a brand of conservatism that sees things a bit differently.
There are many conservatives, probably mostly derived from former cold warriors, who notice a unique situation: As the sole world hyperpower, the US is in an unparalled position to impose our preferred values and interests throughout the world.
Niall Ferguson's book "Collosus" deals with this position. Here's a good review of the book that explains the thesis well. I encourage anyone to read the review to gain understanding on this position. It's a fascinating book.
As a conservative, I find the various positions interesting, although I come out of the interventionalist side. I am wondering what other people, and conservatives in particular, think about this foreign policy split. I am trying to stay away from an Iraq debate to look at the larger picture, so hopefully the people consumed by Bush-hate can leave their two-line talking points in another thread. Maybe we can have this discussion with even mentioning Iraq or Bush? It would be nice to avoid partisan hackery and talk ideas.