Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Jennifer Rubin has an op-ed in the WaPost today bewailing the possibility of a libertarian/Paleo-conservative GOP candidate for President. The upshot would be a fiscally conservative candidate who wants to decrease American overseas involvement, running to the right of Obama on fiscal issues and to the left on national security issues. Rubin says that three candidates in the debate in South Carolina last week were taking that position -- Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, and Ron Paul. She also indicates that Haley Barbour probably would have taken that position and Mitch Daniels might as he has called for defense cuts just as President Obama has.
Rubin seems to think this would be a disaster for the GOP:
A nominee sporting such an outlook, I would suggest, will tear the GOP asunder. Religious conservatives (who take seriously the unique role and obligation of the United States in the world) and defense hawks would be aghast to hear a Republican nominee trying to match (or even outbid) Obama’s defense reductions. And those Republican lawmakers who are bravely resisting the drumbeat in favor of slashing defense would be undercut by their party’s standard-bearer, leaving them vulnerable to attack by Democrats eager to throw the presidential nominee’s positions up in their faces.
In sum, there are substantive and political reasons for Republicans to resist the temptation to abandon modern conservatism’s foreign policy (one that is grounded in moral values as well as a canny assessment of the danger of inaction). Whether they will do so depends in large part on the quality of the candidates and the strength of their arguments. If the internationalists are not forceful and effective in debunking the isolationists, as well as successful at the primary ballot boxes, the country and the party will suffer.
Do you think such a candidate would be disaster for the GOP? For the nation?
- Comment (77)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Paul A. Rahe:
Could it be the case that, as a commercial society focused on production and domestic consumption, we will always be under-prepared?
My inclination is to think that the answer to the latter question is yes -- that in these matters we are our own worst enemies. It is simply too convenient for us to underestimate the dangers we face.
Convenient? Or efficient?
It's inefficient to be thoroughly prepared for all the danger we face. Preparation has its costs, after all, and what have we gained, in total, if the costs outweigh the potential benefits?
May '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
The ROI on defense is much higher than Amtrak and so forth. Let's kill off things like Head Start before we stop building F22's. If we get into a shooting war with China, we are going to want them.
May '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Double post for some reason.
Edited on May 9, 2011 at 10:36pmAug '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
I agree with you that it is inevitable, but I think it's worth explaining why.
There is a market in bread, petroleum, sand, etc. which means there are market prices for these commodities. Thus the government could in principle set up a competitive bidding process for these goods.(Congress may choose to complicate procurement with things like affirmative action, but they don't have to). For instance, I imagine both DOD and civilian branches probably pay reasonable prices for laptop computers that do not involve patronage for politically-connected computer manufacturers because there is a robust market in laptop computers.
In contrast, things like aircraft carriers are low volume and the government is the sole buyer. This means we can't rely on bidding and the decision to buy things is necessarily political.
So yes, pork-driven military spending is pretty much a necessary corollary of representative government (and has been since Gaius Marius).
Edited on May 9, 2011 at 10:41pmDec '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
I think Rubin is right. A neo-isolationist Republican candidate who wants to make large cuts in defense spending and major unilateral withdrawals from our current military deployments and commitments would be a disaster for the GOP.
It could even spawn a strong on defense third party candidate.
A candidate who leans this way must articulately answer in detail, not in broad brushed generalities, Prof. Rahe's questions.
Such a major redirection and restructuring of foreign policy and defense is a high risk experiment possibly without historic precedent. And looking at Ryan’s fiscal plan, it is also unnecessary.
The military role of the US around the globe is unprecedented. A significant US pullback from the world stage could make a major war much more likely, one we would inevitably be drawn into. Moving back towards a 1930s style foreign policy is dangerous.
I very much doubt the GOP will nominate such a candidate. The decades long neo-isolationist libertarian dream of pulling the GOP and the country in this direction will likely not come true. I am fairly certain this faction represents a small minority within the right-of-center conglomerate.
Feb '11
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
anon_academic
I agree with you that it is inevitable, but I think it's worth explaining why.
In contrast, things like aircraft carriers are low volume and the government is the sole buyer. This means we can't rely on bidding and the decision to buy things is necessarily political.
May 9 at 1:39pm
Well, aircraft carriers are aircraft carriers, but they are also so many square feet of 1/4-inch steel, so many miles of electrical wiring, etc. It depends on what level of granularity you take it down to and then you're at a commodity level. Why could that not be done with aircraft carriers? There are going to be highly specialized and secret components, but what about everything else?
May '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
I agree with Paul. Defense spending shouldn't be off limits. But defense cuts should not be a high priority, and any Republican's public concession that defense cuts are needed must be qualified as different in both kind and scope from what Democrats seek.
Defense cuts must take into account:
Casey Taylor
We'll never be ready for the wars we fight because we don't know what future conflicts will look like. The key is stay flexible and innovative on the strategic level, just as we do on the ground.
Agreed. We must be prepared for many kinds of war and multiple theaters. And we must continue to project power through both technology and resolve.
We should scale back our conflicts, but not become isolationists.
Jun '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
As Winston Churchill famously said of battleships:
“The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists [budget office] offered four; and we finally compromised on eight”
May '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
By the way, I am one of Rubin's "religious conservatives" who believes America's power means it has a moral obligation to protect at least the most basic rights of our fellow human beings (ex: the right not to be slaughtered in a genocidal campaign) if / when strategically possible. But one's responsibilities to one's neighbors depend in part on ability. For example, a person who cannot swim is not so obligated as a swimmer to save someone who is drowning.
The U.S. has dug itself into a fiscal hole which alters its responsibilities to foreign peoples. It is not acceptable to be charitable with other people's money. We are not free to be as charitable with our military might and soldiers as before.
In other words, I favor scaling back our military involvement overseas, and I expect other "religious conservatives" do as well. But I do not favor reductions to the point of isolationism. Our financial mess does not justify standing idly by as the rest of the world burns.
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Trace Urdan
Paul A. Rahe
One more comment. Federal expenditures on education, welfare, Amtrak, ethanol, etc. These are species of patronage. These are oxen waiting to be gored. Defense has to do with the common good. We could mess up at the federal level with regard to education, welfare, Amtrak, ethanol, and the like, and the damage would be limited. If we fall short with regard to defense, we will all suffer, and then we will pay in ways that we have never known.
One man's "common good" is another man's patronage.
There is every bit as much patronage in Federal defense spending as there is in Federal education spending. Fed education spending may be tragically misguided in many ways, but it stems from a sincere desire to fix problems and though it disproportionately benefits big cities in blue states that is only because that is the place where our schools are most broken. · May 9 at 1:24pm
No, 100% of federal education spending is patronage. Education is not a function assigned the federal government.
Dec '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
We all seem agreed that some efficiencies are still available, even though there have been cuts. And we should agree that conservative politicians can be among the worst when it comes to defense pork-barreling. I'm reminded of OK representative J.C. Watts essentially ending his political career when his pet, local program was axed.
But fixing this is not overwhelming . Long before Rumsfeld "quit", he had overseen a major shift of emphasis, agaianst all the long knives at the Pentagon, that restructured our approach to defense along more flexible and responsive lines. Of particular interest, to me, was the much-needed de-emphasis of the vast, division-scale organization of units and the new emphasis on brigade-sized units. That left a mark. Hopefully, neither Gates' term, nor the looming Panetta term will allow the bureaucrats and champions of vast divisions to regain ascendancy.
I am truly curious and hope to someday read about what may have transpired during Porter Goss' tenure at CIA. I know the spookocrats had it in for him, especially those that lean left, but it would have been interesting to see him reshape that agency, had he been able to survive.
May '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Well said
Aaron Miller: By the way, I am one of Rubin's "religious conservatives" who believes America's power means it has a moral obligation to protect at least the most basic rights of our fellow human beings (ex: the right not to be slaughtered in a genocidal campaign) if / when strategically possible. But one's responsibilities to one's neighbors depend in part on ability. For example, a person who cannot swim is not so obligated as a swimmer to save someone who is drowning.
The U.S. has dug itself into a fiscal hole which alters its responsibilities to foreign peoples. It is not acceptable to be charitable with other people's money. We are not free to be as charitable with our military might and soldiers as before.
In other words, I favor scaling back our military involvement overseas, and I expect other "religious conservatives" do as well. But I do not favor reductions to the point of isolationism. Our financial mess does not justify standing idly by as the rest of the world burns. · May 9 at 2:18pm
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Hang On: Prof. Rahe,
You mention Stanley Baldwin, and I agree it is something that should be avoided. However, why was Baldwin doing what he was doing? Niall Ferguson in Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order says that the British spent between 1 and 2 percent of GDP on defense after the Great War. Their demise came as a result of too much borrowing during World War I and going from the largest creditor to largest debtor nation in the world. Combined with that is a low growth rate in the 1920s and 1930s. That forced Baldwin's hand. That is what we should be concerned about more than anything else for the defense of this country. · May 9 at 1:23pm
Edited on May 09 at 01:24 pm
Nothing forced Stanley Baldwin's hand. Of course, he did operate under constraints. There was a depression. He had to choose between guns and butter. He chose butter. Think of what was later spent on guns because of that choice. And think of the lives that were lost. Let me add that the constraints he faced were far more severe than those we face.
Jun '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Nominating Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, or Ron Paul would be a disaster, not because of their positions, but because none of them can win. Paul comes across as having a few screws loose, and Johnson is so aloof and standoffish he would make Obama seem folksy and grounded by comparison. Cain is the most electable of the three, but let's face it, he has less experience or qualification for the office than Sarah Palin.
May '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
As far as all the ones we got now with lots of experience:
How's that working out for ya'?
Jun '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Bryan G. Stephens
As far as all the ones we got now with lots of experience:
How's that working out for ya'? · May 9 at 3:24pm
Yeah, I heard that line in the debate. The problem is the inexperienced president currently sitting with his feet up on the Oval Office desk isn't working out so well, and I'd like to replace him with someone with hands-on budget-cutting executive experience. Someone like Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Chris Christie, or Tim Pawlenty.
May '11
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Joseph Stanko
Bryan G. Stephens
As far as all the ones we got now with lots of experience:
How's that working out for ya'? · May 9 at 3:24pm
Yeah, I heard that line in the debate. The problem is the inexperienced president currently sitting with his feet up on the Oval Office desk isn't working out so well, and I'd like to replace him with someone with hands-on budget-cutting executive experience. Someone like Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Chris Christie, or Tim Pawlenty. · May 9 at 4:02pm
As far as hands-on budget-cutting experience, you can't get much better than Johnson.
Jun '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
Dan IV
As far as hands-on budget-cutting experience, you can't get much better than Johnson. · May 9 at 4:13pm
Perhaps, but there's a reason the moderators kept skipping him: he has no chance of winning. None. He's Ron Paul but with less money, name recognition, or supporters.
Mar '11
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
anon_academic
In contrast, things like aircraft carriers are low volume and the government is the sole buyer. This means we can't rely on bidding and the decision to buy things is necessarily political.
So yes, pork-driven military spending is pretty much a necessary corollary of representative government (and has been since Gaius Marius). · May 9 at 1:39pm
Edited on May 09 at 01:41 pm
Yes, and no.
Military hardware purchased by the government is pretty limited as described.
But military *services* are not.
I know people will squawk, but if we give private companies the freedom to find the best solution for a given problem, costs will go down, and performance will go up. There are many different ways to project force. Sometimes it means ICBMs, sometimes aircraft carriers, sometimes boots on the ground.
Bid out the services. Allow private companies, hiring only people qualified for the US military, to be creative in delivering those services. I think the results would be superb.
Aug '10
Re: Libertarian/Paleo-conservative Disaster in the Making?
iWc
Yes, and no.
Military hardware purchased by the government is pretty limited as described.
But military *services* are not.
I know people will squawk, but if we give private companies the freedom to find the best solution for a given problem, costs will go down, and performance will go up. There are many different ways to project force. Sometimes it means ICBMs, sometimes aircraft carriers, sometimes boots on the ground.
Bid out the services. Allow private companies, hiring only people qualified for the US military, to be creative in delivering those services. I think the results would be superb. · May 9 at 4:27pm
There's not exactly a robust private market in condottieri either, so this presents the same public choice problems as procuring weapons platforms. And for what it's worth, for the last twenty years the military has been contracting out a lot of services traditionally filled by the military itself to contractors like KBR. Add to that there are inevitably (not necessarily justifiably, but inevitably) severe legal and political problems associated with military contracting as evidenced by the tremendous unpopularity of Blackwater with both the American left and Iraqi demagogues.
Edited on May 10, 2011 at 1:49am