I'm reminded of an old Mother Jones article that I keep turning back to on how to build a "Liberal Foreign Policy." Two good quotes from it are:

"[A] truly liberal foreign policy starts with the idea that the things American liberals want for themselves-liberty and equality ensured by collective action-should be America's goal for the rest of the world as well."

"Multilateral action with other democracies should be at the core of a liberal foreign policy."

At the same time, I really was influenced recently by this post by James Leroy Wilson. Given the goals of individual autonomy, choice, and free markets, how do we go about meeting those goals? If libertarians want freedom for themselves, should they not always want it for others? But James is right in pointing out how MEANS are just as important as the END:

It is natural for believers in individual liberty to be frustrated by backward or prejudiced local laws and practices. They assume that the remedy is in appealing to a higher authority, such as the federal courts. Likewise, advocates of free markets are inclined to support international trade treaties and agreements as a means to lower tariffs. And many are even tempted to use the military to liberate oppressed people around the world.

In each case, we are asked to rely on a power - a government - to do something good. But if we trust government to protect our freedom, we might as well trust it to cure poverty, ignorance, and disease. Government is the problem, not the solution. A higher level of government can not be expected to fix the problem of a lower level of government. When it appears that government is advancing rather than restricting freedom, we can be sure that either a bad precedent has been set, there are ulterior motives, or both.

Federal courts intervene in local conflicts over, say, prayer in schools, but then uphold federal laws that abridge freedom of political speech. "Free trade" agreements lower tariffs in some areas, but never seem to actually simplify international trade. Rather, they are filled with political favors for certain industries over others, which ultimately hurts workers and consumers. Foreign interventions never actually liberate foreign peoples, but they do create huge profits for defense contractors.

If a "liberventionist" can trust the American government to spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East, how can they not also trust the American government to provide universal health care? This is the sort of slippery slope that can very quickly turn someone into an anarchist. In the past, I've turned to my conclusion that the state is unavoidable as a way out of the anarchist slippery slope. We're stuck with government it seems, so we want the best government. And if we distrust government, the best government is the least government . . . yes, no, maybe so?

1. What do you think of the international community?

I don't know if I think anything at all about "the international community." I don't see a monolithic "international community," I see all these various components and it's hard for me to make an overall statement. There are all these gears and cogs and some may look broken, but it's hard for me to see if there is even a bigger system that they are coming together to form. I see Europe going in one direction, Russia in another direction, China up, Africa down, etc. etc.

2. What is the U.S.'s role in the international community?

Do we have a role? It seems to be preaching about freedom and democracy, but not for everyone. It seems to be one set of rules for our friends and allies, and another set of rules for our enemies. I really do think that under Bush we've shifted to a foreign policy that has America act like a bully, an empire. I don't know what our actual goals are; it seems we're just after making sure that we dominate.

3. What is the future of the international community?

I see the trajectories of the regions of the world continuing to diverge. Cuba and Venezuela were once two of the most pro-American states in Latin America, and now look at them. All of Latin America is shifting away from us. Europe is becoming more . . . well, European. Russia is trying to go its own way--sinking back into authoritarianism. China is on the rise, and I'm worried about what that means for North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. I'm worried that we are going to fail badly in the Middle East. And no one seems to want to even think about Africa. I worry that as time goes on, America is going to feel less and less in control and will lash out more and more violently.

4. Is that a future we would like to live in?

Not particularly.

5. If not, should the U.S. help to bring about a different future?

Yes. We an work more on bringing together the Western Hemisphere and mending fences with our neighbors. We can back away from meddling in the affairs of other nations when it doesn't impact our national security. If we draw a close circle around what we consider national security, we have more independence and flexibility in the rest of the world. We would have more freedom to work within a multilateral system.

Basically, the libertarian side is reaching a point where we realize that we shouldn't be the world's police officer. We don't need out troops everywhere. And we can fight terrorism without invading countries like Iraq. The liberal side is working with other countries to help other regions; right now that would primarily be the Middle East and Africa.

Our first goal is peace and stability; which to me comes from disengagement and an end to meddling in the affairs of other nations. Next comes economic growth and prosperity; which to occur needs as much change in the domestic policies of America as in the international realm. Then comes political freedom and liberty. We cannot impose the final through military force. We have to create a global environment that nurtures freedom.

Guys, we're smart individuals, and if anyone can come up with good responses to the typical "We're in a war to the death with Islamo-Fascists and only Republicans and Joe Lieberman understand that!" it should be us, right?

Some of the rhetoric from the right is just down right absurd. This whole "Eurabia" crap, for example. It's interesting that we started with "the Axis of Evil" with a secular Sunni state, a fanatically Shi'a state, and atheist Communist state, but now we're fighting against "Islamo-Fascism."

So what's the deal? I don't think the Democrats are ever going to have a proper foreign policy until they either 1)- Specifically challenge the conservative's foreign policy view, not just their prescribed policies, or 2)- Accept the conservative foreign policy view, but offer different solutions. Overall, I strongly favor the former option. Shouldn't we all?

After all, I'm not sold that this is a "clash of civilizations" even if I love the book "Clash of Civilizations." I am not yet convinced by anyone that any "clash" that involves the "Islamic Civilization" is a clash with America. Islam against its neighbors in Africa and Asia? Sure. But where's the evidence that the national security of the United States is under threat, except for the fact that we meddle in the Middle East and invite Islamic aggression.

And once we've drawn the circle in a way that exludes any such "clash" as a direct threat to our national security, we've liberated the United States from any sense of fear or danger. Instead, we let our liberal instincts take over. Multilateralism, soft power, and the like are brought in to help deal with regional problems. No need to count down to World War III.

Thoughts?

The problem is Democrats and foreign policy is that they are too afraid to the obvious alternative to the proto-typical Republican approach (you're with us or against us and if you're against us, we will use all of our power to undermine you). The grand strategic notion that I am trying to articulate in a very methodical way (and which Logan has clearly picked up on) is complicated and doesn't fit neatly into the jingoist rhetoric of war and nationalism.

I think the foreign policy approach most libertarians can really agree to can be summed up in one word: leadership. We are a fairly successful liberal democracy with a relatively free market and a diverse economy. We're not perfect and wouldn't presume to be, but at least we know how we want to live. In order to get to that imagined future state, we're going to need to bring most of the world along on that trajectory as well. It is a pretty good vision that should include a place to everyone else in the world, so the trick is to articulate and demonstrate it in such a way that people want to follow.

In a way, the philosophy of the Bush administration shares this perspective. I remember when Condi Rice gave her first speech to Georgetown in 2002 during the rhetoric windup to the invasion of Iraq. When someone ask why she thought the international community would follow the U.S. into Baghdad, she said "leadership breeds followers." That is very true, but the problem is that Bush grossly underestimated how unpopular his foreign policy vision would be around the world. This is because the vision is inherently authoritarian and divise - basically, you're either with us or against us and if you're with us, you do what we say.

When I think about leadership, I think of Mike Mazaar's description from his essay "Acting Like a Leader" (Survival, Winter 2002-2003): A leader leads, but is also willing to follow. A leader articulates a vision, but also let's followers contribute. A leader decides, but is also listens to concensus. Even if a leader's decision is right, he or she still takes the time to convince followers.

The U.S. needs to lead the world with a bold libertarian vision. Democracy isn't perfect and markets aren't always fair or free, but their the best organizational tools we have. More importantly, we can't impose either on a people at the barrel of a gun or under the weight of sanctions. Our advantage is that we can propose some bold political steps that would really shape up the international system that will galvanize followers (in a good way). One of the obvious first steps would be to take an aggressive step towards truely free trade. After that, who knows.

I am interested to hear what you all think of U.S. involvement in peacekeeping.

In response to question #1 (What do you think of the international community?)

Not only is their selfishness and "realpolitik" in international relations, but there is also hatred. Hatred serves nobody's interests, not even the interests of the hater. It is irrational, emotional response to various conditions. On a related issue, there is also substantial mistrust. Mistrust can be rational, but it is often misplaced -- either because a person doesn't realize how much things have changed, or because this person fails to identify the source of his troubles.

Two examples:

Race relations in the US: A number of black Americans distrust "the white establishment". I think they're wrong, but I understand the source of their mistrust. The (white) establishment systematically suppressed black Americans until just 40 years ago. Even if the (white) establishment has done a 180 and now accepts blacks, I don't expect blacks to instantly trust the establishment, especially considering the economic inertia inherent to our system.

Third world countries vs the West: Most of the damage done to third-world countries was done by Europeans, but America did it's share of direct damage (Phillipines, for starters). Furthermore, America shares culture with the European imperialists, and basically "took the reigns" from the Europeans in many parts of the world (Vietnam, Iran), so its no surprize that we get lumped in with the Europeans and blamed for their crimes. Even if we suddenly realize what jerks we've been and clean-up our act, we can't expect other countries to trust us instantly.

About the "international community"? That's easy: it doesn't exist. It's a myth that "the world" can agree on anything. I actually agree with dismissing global institutions because they have no real purpose except as puppets, shields behind which nations do whatever they were going to do anyway.

BTW: Robot, you might want to distinguish between our globalization (true free trade) and the garbage that passes for it now. A lot of the anger out there is actually because of globalization as is currently practiced, trade must have force REMOVED otherwise it serves the opposite purpose.

I think the one key difference between how libertarian's approach grand strategy and how other's approach it is our subject-orientation. Traditional foreign policy schools (isolationist, neocon, (neo)realist or (neo)liberal) tend to think in terms of what is "good for America." Is it me or isn't that overly nationalistic and elitist?

Yes! (I don't say my political slant is 'anti-nationalist' for nothing.)

The essence of a libertarian approach to to grand strategy should think in terms of what is "good for Americans." What is the one thing that libertarians tend to say is good for Joe Everyman? Choice and the more options the better. A libertartian grand strategy should therefore work to maximize the amount of safe possibilities for Americans to make associations and go aborad. Clintonian strategy wanted to open markets for "America," whereas we want to open opportunities for "Americans."

Sounds good to me but frankly it is too vauge. A neocon could easily claim that the way to maximize safe possibilities for Amurricans is to force regime changes in every jurisdiction until all jurisdictions end up with regimes that like Amurricans.