Neolibertarian Foreign Policy Is Similar But Very Different from Neoconservative Foreign Policy.
As I have always said since roughly 2010 to 2011, I am a neolibertarian. This is a classical liberal who supports a strong military and thinks the US military should overthrow terrorism-sponsoring regimes. It’s my endorsement of military defensives that separates me from many libertarians, and gives me similarity to neoconservatives.
Now, when you think about that, think about this idea as follows. If you support free trade and freedom of movement as libertarians like me do. Then it is principled to have a strong military and to be ready to use that military to defend the people who engage in these activities against foreign aggression.
So, being a neolibertarian makes me someone who supports free trade and freedom of movement so adamantly as to say something like this.
“If some despotic cesspit is sponsoring genocide or terrorism against free travelers or free traders, then we have a right to use defensive military force to destroy that cesspit.”
The Differences Listed
- The main concern neoconservatives have in foreign policy is to prevent the development of a new Soviet Union. While neolibertarians like me have the main concern of defending the primacies of free trade and open immigration.
- Neoconservatives are very willing to exert their goals unilaterally as proven in the Bush Doctrine. But myself and other neolibertarians would rather go multilateral routes like NATO and OECD for exerting our goals.
- Also the Bush Doctrine proved that neoconservatives are willing to use preventive war as initial aggressor, unprovoked. Neolibertarians, such as me, will only support preventive war if it is visibly being used for self-defense and defense of others.
- So far as Regime Change goes, Neoconservatives will readily endorse the Bush and Obama style of keeping US troops in enemy land to build democracy for the enemy. Whereas neolibertarians like me prefer the FDR style of drafting a Jeffersonian styled constitution for the militarily defeated former hostiles to base their new nation on.
- In other words, we (or at least I) view ‘Constitutional Regime Change’ as far superior to ‘Democratic Regime Change’.
- We the neolibertarians also favor being balanced in our combination of pragmatism with libertarianism in formulating Constitutionally viable national security uses of Digital Age safety tech. And then you have neoconservatives disregarding the ideas of constitutionalism and pragmatism when using digital age tech for national security.
- James Madison’s US Constitution and Thomas Jefferson’s US Declaration of Independence are the sense of right and wrong to us neolibertarians. While neoconservatives cite the Ronald Raegan presidential platform as their sense of right and wrong.
- Neolibertarians like me are very adaptable to newer realities and threats to free trade and open immigration, like Saudi Arabia with its Salafi Empire, that are of the 21st century. However, Neoconservatives are mentally stuck in the 1950’s in terms of not just goals but also in terms of defense policies proposed.
Well, I hope now the internet can keep on promoting awareness of the difference between neolibertarian and neoconservative on foreign policy level. Thanks for the read,