A Better Conservative Foreign Policy
by Roman Joch

I am second to none in my admiration to Paul Weyrich. I owe him much, personally. My first trip to the U.S. – when I was a 22 years old boy – was due to the invitation by the Krieble Institute of the Free Congress Foundation. Without encountering Mr. Weyrich and other American conservatives, I would have had probably remained a classical liberal or a libertarian. Thanks to him and them, I have become a conservative.

However, I take an exception to Mr. Weyrich’s opinion expressed in “A Conservative Foreign Policy” (Conservative Battleline 10/12/05, Republican Meltdown? Issue). I do not think that Senator Robert Taft’s views have been either the sole or the best guide for the right conservative foreign policy. I would rather recommend views of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan as better guides to conservatives.

I see two crucial issues: (1) Should the purpose of the American foreign policy be the maintenance and defense of freedom of Americaonly, or should it be the maintenance and defense of American freedom primarily and of freedom in the world (especially of Western nations) secondarily? (2) Do we owe our earthly loyalty to our respective nation-states only, or do we owe it to our respective nation-states and to our common Western Christian civilization, as well?

Let us compare. Robert Taft: “...I do not believe any policy which has behind it the threat of military force is justified as part of the basic foreign policy of the United States except to defend the liberty of our own people. ... I do not believe it is a selfish goal for us to insist that the overriding purpose of all American foreign policy should be the maintenance of the liberty and peace of our people of the United States...”

Robert Taft’s answers to both of my questions were the former ones, not the lattter ones. Robert Taft, in fact, had said: purpose of my nation’s foreign policy is to secure my nation’s freedom only; it, however, presupposes the view that my early loyalty belongs to my nation-state only.

On the other hand, let us read this: “Today the American commonwealth, as well as the civilization that illuminated it, are mortally threatened by the global Communist revolution. We hold that permanent co-existence with Communism is neither honorable nor desirable nor possible. Communism would enslave the world by any means expedient to that end. We deem no sacrifice too great to avoid that fate. We would parry the enemy’s thrusts – but more: by maintaining American military superiority and exerting relentless pressure against the Communist empire, we would advance the frontiers of freedom.” (American Conservative Union's Statement of Principles, December 1964)

We see that the goal was not the defense of American freedom only, not even the defense of freedom of Americaand of her allies only, but the advance of frontiers of freedom! March of freedom in the world, forward strategy for freedom in the world. And the cause for concern – and the reason for an active foreign policy - was not the threat to the nation-state (“American commonwealth”) only, but the threat to the civilization (“that illuminated it”), as well. The threat to the Western civilization at home and abroad was the cause for concern and the reason for an active foreign policy of the American conservatives. Hence, earthly loyalty is undoubtly not owned to a nation-state only, but to a civilization, as well.

Or let us read this: “…I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow. I believe that the Communism which boasts it will burry us will instead givce way to the forces of freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recongnizeable future the outlines of a world worthy of our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny.”

Had I continued with the following quotation from the same speech – “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” – every American conservative would immediately know that I have quoted from Senator Barry Goldwater’s Acceptance Speech at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco, California, on July 16, 1964. So, here do we see: “...we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow.” Not defense of our freedom only, but extension of freedom in the world, as well.

And, finally, let us read this: “We must have courage to do what we know is morally right, and this policy of accommodation asks us to accept the greatest possible immorality. We are being asked to buy safety from the threat of the Bomb by selling into permanent slavery our fellow human beings enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, to tell them to give up their hope of freedom because we are ready to make a deal with their slave masters.” (Ronald Reagan, “A Time for Choosing”, October 27, 1964)

Reagan’s goal was not a defense of his own nation’s freedom only. His was a voice of an abolitionist - international, global abolitionist - a voice of a prophet in the desert, crying from despair in warning his own people from commiting a mortal sin: buying own security by consenting to slavery of others. Reagan was suggesting that even had the Communists proposed a deal to America to leave America alone and not to threaten her, in exchange with America’s consent to Commmunists’ permanent rule behind the Iron Curtain, that still would be highly immoral and completely unacceptable; wasn’t he? Slaves ought to be free, one day. Reagan’s foreign policy vision was not that of a self-interest narrowly understood, his was a vision of an American self-interest broadly understood and infused with an ideal: advance of freedom in the world. Ronald Reagan was no Henry Kissinger (for Reagan, Détente was just another name for appeasement); but Ronald Reagan was no Robert Taft, either.

I am convinced the the latter answers to my two questions (answers by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and ACU in 1964) – not the former ones (those by Robert Taft) - are right for conservatives: the right purpose of our nation’s foreign policy is to maintain and defend our freedom primarily and freedoms of others in the world (especially those belonging to the Western civilization) secondarily; and yes, we owe our earthly loyalty to our nation-state and also to our civilization. I am convinced these answers are right morally, politically and in the long term perspective, strategically, too.

There are possible three potentially conservative objections against my (and Goldwater’s and Reagan’s) position. Firstly, what is my right to set the proper foreign policy for American conservatives, when I am not an American? Well, I have no right to impose my views on Americans, but as a free person – free thanks to the foreign policy views and deeds of American conservatives in the last half Century – I have a right to suggest, and argue for, what I deem to be right. I think that the foreign policy of defending own nation’s freedom primarily and other (especially Western) nations’ freedoms secondarily, is right for all Western nations, including my own.

Secondly, is not an advocation of Wilsonian spread of Democracy around the world utopian? Yes, it is, but I have never advocated spread of Democracy. I have advocated defense of freedom of those who are already free and advance of freedom to those who are ready to be free. Between freedom and democracy, there is a huge difference. Democracy may not serve interests of freedom well in many nations and cultures of the world. Rule of law and property rights, as well as religious freedom are more important than ballot boxes, democratic elections and majority rule. Mild authoritarian pro-Western regimes could be best for freedom in many parts of the world.

And thirdly, does not “empire abroad almost certainly mean eventual extinction of liberty at home”, as Mr. Weyrich has maintained? No, it does not. Empire abroad may mean eventual extinction of liberty at home, but it definitely does mean it neither necessarily, nor almost certainly. The British empire of the second half of the 19 th Century had been the high water mark of classical liberalism in history and one of the closest aproximations (together with the Founding Fathers’ U.S.A.) to the ideal of minimal state and small government. British had had their huge, large empire abroad, with all those colonial, imperialist wars abroad ( India, Africa, etc.) - and a small government at home. On the contrary, the era of decolonisation and a leftist ideological hate against empire was the era of a growing government, socialism and welfare state at home – in the mid of the 20 th century. As British abandoned their Empire in the mid of the 20 th Century, they simultaneously abandoned the last remnants of their 19 th Century classical liberalism, minimal state and limited govenrment at home, in order to raise their monstrous welfare state. All that happend under leftist, anti-imperialist, socialist ideology of Labour Party.

Empire abroad does not necessarily mean, or lead to, the loss of freedom at home. Even more, empires abroad have often meant extensions of blessings of liberty to foreign peoples abroad without restricting liberties of own people at home. On the other hand, disbanding of empire could lead to establishments of local tyrants and tyrannies abroad without increasing freedom at home. That really happend to the Great Britain and its former colonies in Africa in the 60ies of the 20 th Century. Would anybody doubt that people of Uganda were better off and more free under the rule of Her Majesty’s Royal Governors than under the local rule of Idi Amin? And would India ever be so liberal and (relatively) free country as it is today without being a British colony in the past?

And when we are already at it: being Americans, you can try to answer even other questions, those dealing not with Britons, but with yourself, Americans: Would anybody of you doubt that people of Japan were better off and more free under the rule of your very own American general Douglas MacArthur than under the local rule of Tojo? And would Japan ever be so liberal and free country as it is today without being under gen. MacArthur’s “colonial” and “imperialist” rule in the past? What are your answers?

I am not advocating a creation of new Western empires. I just maintain that statement “empire abroad almost certainly means eventual extinction of liberty at home” is neither true, nor historically vindicated.

I understand Mr. Weyrich’s objection against utopian attempts to spread Democracy abroad, to those parts of the world where it cannot stand, for cultural and civilisational reasons, at least for now. I share that objection of Mr. Weyrich. But I think that Robert Taft’s focus on defense of own nation’s freedom only, disregarding fates and freedoms of friendly nations of our own civilization abroad, was sound neither morally, nor politically, nor strategically. After all, was it a sound policy to oppose the creation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949? Senator Taft thought so and voted against NATO. But NATO was a bedrock of Western alliance during the whole Cold War.

That was the strategy that has preserved America free, Western Europe safe, and has finally lead to the collaps of the Communist totalitarianism and to freedom for millions of Central and Eastern Europeans, members of former “captive nations” of the Soviet Empire. That was the strategy advocated by the ACU, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Paul Weyrich. Thanks to them all; because of them, there are “captive nations” in Central and Eastern Europe no more; because of them, I am free now.

Roman Joch, Civic Institute, Prague, Czech Republic

Email the Editor