On a Conservative vs. a Progressive Foreign Policy

James Poulos alerted me last week to a provocative piece his fine new outfit Culture11 published, and I’ve been meaning to write about it ever since. Indeed, I still intend to.

In the meantime, however, Andrew Sullivan praised the piece as an attempt to rebuild “a conservative foreign policy” in the wake of Bush/Cheney and in the face of the perilous promise of McCain. If by “conservative”, Andrew meant “not reckless”, then yes, I agree: the above-mentioned piece (by Nick Gvosdev, formerly of The National Interest) is a good place to start the discussion.

But the term “conservative” grates on my ear when applied to foreign policy much like it rankles when Matt Yglesias bandies about a “progressive” agenda for foreign affairs. Quite simply put, such categories do not exist in any meaningful way. There’s a tradition of skeptical isolationism in American foreign policy, which I’d argue Gvosdev’s piece flirts with. And there’s a tradition that seeks to keep America engaged in the world. Among the latter branch, you’ll find realists, liberal internationalists, neoconservatives (or “assertive nationalists”), and a whole bevy of people who fall somewhere in between those three large categories.

Claims for “progressive” or “conservative” foreign policy, to my ear at least, seem to be attempts at capturing one or more of the above traditions in the service of some larger organizing political movement. As such, they are misleading and are not welcome. Neither party, nor either “political persuasion”, has had a monopoly on wisdom or on folly when it comes to these things. Given the enormous challenges we face, finding a “conservative” or “progressive” foreign policy is counter-productive. We should be concentrating on finding the best solutions, period.