While Ron Paul was the only presidential candidate to notch not a single win on Super Tuesday, he and his zealous supporters still are widely expected to be a strong presence at the GOP convention. Many applaud the Texas congressman for bringing a unique and refreshing viewpoint to the campaign: a consistent pro-liberty conservatism opposed to government coercion in both economic and social spheres.
As someone sympathetic to the libertarian political philosophy, I applaud Paul for extending conservative skepticism toward state power to moral and lifestyle issues. But American libertarianism has always been split on the question of the United States’ role in the world—and here, Paul is on the wrong side.
Given the Iraq fiasco and the Afghanistan quagmire, mistrust of foreign adventures is understandable and healthy. But the radical anti-interventionism championed by Paul—withdrawal from NATO, the closure of all U.S. bases abroad, and generally the end of American “meddling”—goes far beyond prudence. It is profoundly reckless, not only ignoring the unanticipated consequences of a drastic upset in the global balance of power but often taking a stunningly naive view of human affairs.
Libertarians are rightly concerned that any U.S. government powerful enough to be a major force in international politics is likely to be too powerful at home. But the alternative of a drastically diminished global role for America raises some hard questions. Can those who champion liberty be concerned only with freedom in America—and can the freedoms we enjoy as U.S. citizens be unaffected if liberty declines in the rest of the world?
Power abhors a vacuum; if America with its still-unrivaled power effectively retires from global politics, others will fill the gap. Europe? Perhaps; but there is also China, combining capitalist-style economic success with communist political totalitarianism. There is neo-authoritarian Russia, seeking to restore its sphere of influence in the former Soviet empire and pursuing a cynical “Dictatorships of the world, unite” strategy everywhere from the Mideast to Latin America. There is the new force of Islamist regimes rising in the wake of the Arab Spring.
None of these scenarios bode well for the future. Can we remain indifferent, from a moral standpoint, if our allies in the former Soviet bloc are brought back under the Russian boot, or if South Korea, Japan and Taiwan become Chinese satellites? If Israel’s situation grows more precarious?
We ourselves, moreover, live in an interconnected world. Paul’s supporters often point to his staunch defense of free trade to rebut the charge of isolationism. But how would trade, and American business abroad, fare after the end of “American imperialism”? Should we have no qualms about dealing with repressive regimes that use the benefits of trade to solidify their power—which they may later use against our interests? Should we remain passive if a foreign government seizes the local properties of U.S. businesses?
The world is not a libertarian place; it is filled with regimes that respect force above all. A superpower in retreat would not be loved for “minding its own business,” but viewed with contempt and constantly tested for weakness. This is particularly true when American culture, with its movies and music and individual freedom, is viewed as an intolerable intrusion by many authoritarian governments and societies.
Regrettably, Paul’s hostility to the American “militaristic state” has often led him to a reflexive sympathy for anti-American regimes that are no friends to freedom—and to disturbing moral equivalencies. He sided with Russia in 2008 in its attack on Georgia and the seizure of two disputed provinces. He has portrayed Iran’s repressive regime as a victim of international bullying and has equated the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces with the Chinese government assassinating a dissident living in the United States.
In the early 2000s, many libertarians supported U.S. interventionism, including the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Iraq’s lessons have understandably soured them on democracy-exporting. While more humility in international affairs is in order, an abrogation of our leadership would be a tragic mistake—bad for us, bad for freedom.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine and a columnist at the Boston Globe. She is the author of Growing Up in Moscow: Memories of a Soviet Girlhood.
