Realism and the Libertarian Ideal
by Omar Hossino Many contemporary writers on neoconservatism's follies and the failures of modern imperialism subsequently endorse the realist school of international relations. Numerous conservative and libertarian writers emphasize the need for realism in international relations. Michael C. Desch, a notable conservative scholar of international relations wrote in the Independent Review:
Other non-interventionist conservative and libertarian writers opposed to the neoconservatives echo such judgment including Daniel Drezner, a realist libertarian Republican political scientist, and the Cato Institute's Justin Logan. Realism it now seems is the libertarian and conservative school of choice in international relations. The principle of non-interventionism grounded in the ultimate classical liberal principle of natural rights has always been at the forefront of libertarian and conservative foreign policy. The founding fathers, most notably Thomas Jefferson, and their shunning of "entangling alliances" coupled with support of free trade amongst nations forms the basis of the libertarian and non-interventionist view of foreign policy. Realism, both its classic philosophical and modern scientific variants, is not based in any classical liberal view of the world. Realism's founding political philosophers Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes are at extreme variance and contrast with the classical liberal world view. Indeed, E.H. Carr remarks in his study of World War I The Twenty Years Crisis that the main difference between realism and idealism is that realism accepts a Hobbesian world while idealism accepts a Lockean one. From the outset, realism and classical liberalism are incompatible. To the realist the international system exists in a state of anarchy identical to the Hobbesian state of nature. The absence of a world government leads to a power politics realpolitik struggle for power. Power for the realist is what guarantees national security with one school of realism called offensive realism stating that the attainment of regional hegemony is the best guarantee of security in our anarchic world. Offensive realists such as John Mearsheimer defend conquest as something which is beneficial for a state's security. Power, especially the increase of power in the hands of government officials or any other centralized source, has long been known as anathema to classical liberals and thus libertarians and conservatives. Classical liberals have built their entire political philosophy on the Lockean conception of natural rights and the support of laissez faire so it seems extremely strange that they would find this compatible the Hobbesian state of nature which served as an argument for the absolutist power of the state. Machiavelli was never a proponent of any aspect of the classical liberal libertarian philosophy. Leo Strauss' work Thoughts on Machiavelli in which Strauss defends the Machiavellian conception of "might as right" rejecting any conception of natural rights was fiercely criticized by the libertarian movement including the late libertarian political philosopher Murray Rothbard for replacing the relativism and nihilism which he fought against with a markedly amoral philosophy. Thomas Woods Jr., David Gordon, Thomas DiLorenzo, and Congressman Ron Paul along with others from the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a central group of American libertarians, have criticized the Straussians for their rejection of natural rights theory and their replacement of it with ethics based on "statesmanship" based in the Platonic ideal of the philosopher-king which they find most manifested modernly with Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. The Machiavellian ideal has been a central force of imperialism, not non-intervention, and its status as a foundation of realism shows how truly far realism is from the libertarian political philosophy. The realist view on trade is also at odds with the libertarian and conservative ideal. Libertarians, conservatives, and classical liberals favor free trade amongst nations as a force in establishing peace and prosperity for all David Ricardo's comparative advantage. Realists on the other hand are suspicious of free trade. E.H. Carr makes abundantly clear in The Twenty Years Crisis that classical realist thought was opposed to Adam Smith's doctrine of "the harmony of interests" or enlightened self-interest, which was instead held by idealist or liberal scholars. Modern realists such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer write how economic power is the basis of military power and of the need of cutting off free trade to states such as China which may rise as potential hegemonic competitors. Realists such as Mearsheimer in his The Tragedy of Great Power Politics argue that free trade does not increase cooperation and peace but establishes military strength in competitor nation states. Mercantilism always has been anathema to the classical liberal who, believed in "free trade with all." Realists also differ with libertarians and conservatives on a particularly nuanced point their positivist methodology. Conservatives and libertarians of the 20th century including Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, and Eric Voegelin all rejected positivism, historicism, and scientism in the social sciences especially the study of politics. Modern neorealists are arch-positivist and historicist in their methodology ever since the publication of Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics which is admittedly based upon applying the methodology of modern positivist economics to international politics. Waltz of all paradigms uses Keynesianism at one point to illustrate his theory as well as the virulently anti-libertarian Hobson-Lenin theory of imperialism. For Waltz, "states" are rational security-seeking actors which seek to increase their power or maintain balances of power in the anarchic violent world of international politics. The realism of Kissinger was opposed in the 1970s by the non-interventionist libertarian movement for many of these reasons. Realism at its very core is anti-libertarian and markedly non-liberal in its approach. This does not mean that realist assertions and studies are not useful for conservatives, libertarians, and the classical liberal worldview. Realists often arrive at extremely intelligent and markedly poignant conclusions on U.S. foreign policy. Nor does this mean that the modern idealist liberal institutionalist school of international relations based in Wilsonianism is the right direction for a conservative and libertarian grand strategy. Modern day "liberals" which made up Clintonian foreign policy and ultimately serve as the basis of the modern neoconservative movement are also greatly at odds with the non-interventionist libertarian conservative. Realism and idealism ultimately represent two approaches which do not fully conform to the libertarian worldview. Realists in their belief that human nature is ultimately evil, their acceptance of "might as right," their protectionism, and their obsession with power. Idealists with their belief that human nature is ultimately good, their Jacobin belief that Utopian democratization dreams may be made real on earth (the Voegelinian immanentization of the eschaton), and their belief in either large multinational institutions or their classical belief in world government. The core of the classical liberal, libertarian, and traditional conservative political philosophies is in the acceptance of the reality of natural law grounded in the transcendent order. This same natural law approach was at the core of the three great monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam written of by Moses Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, and Averroes respectively. The concept of just war casus bellum, most notable to St. Augustine of Hippo but also in the Islamic tradition to Imam Sahnun, and accepted in some sense by Jews, Christians, Muslims, libertarians, classical liberals, and traditional conservatives alike should be the very basis of non-interventionism in international relations. This truth is reflected in the most basic axiom of the natural law tradition the principle of non-aggression. It is this principle that has been the foundation of international law since the time of its development by Grotius, another natural law theorist. Realism at its core does not reflect this principle, for Machiavelli (as well as Thucydides and Hobbes) considered morality to be simply a function of power as E.H. Carr remarked for him the state exists for no higher purpose than to exist and preserve its existence. It would be thus wise for the modern defenders of liberty and non-aggression to reject realism as simply another road into a foreign policy at odds with freedom. April 5, 2008 Omar Hossino [send him mail] is a student of political science and President of the Muslim Student Association at Radford University. Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com
|
