I've recently been drafting a paper explaining the difference between Isolationism and Non-Interventionism, and have hit a bit of a wall.
I can quite easily distinguish Isolationism as a combination of non-interventionism AND protectionism. But what would we call the other combinations?
Is anyone aware of a proper name for a philosophy that combines free-trade and non-intervention? I know it could be argued that libertarianism in fact does, but the CATO crowd as of late seems to be endorsing a combination of free-trade and intervention, so it feels that this does not work. What term would one use to describe this foreign policy? And what would then one call CATO's intervention and free trade, or a philosophy of protectionism at home and interventionism abroad?
If anyone has any thoughts on this they would be much appreciated. And if their is no proper term for at least one of these, any ideas as to what they should be called?
I think the biggest problem you're going to have is that non-interventionism was an actual philosophy, whereas "isolationism" was just a polemical expression cooked up by the war party. I'm not sure isolationism has ever had a fixed real meaning.
The combination of free trade and non-interventionism used to be called liberalism and technically that's still correct.
DBratton:The combination of free trade and non-interventionism used to be called liberalism and technically that's still correct.
I agree, and believe I share the sentiment of many here in wishing that we could reclaim liberalism. Perhaps the move of the mainstream democrats toward labeling themselves "progressives," a more honest term, would allow that opportunity.
But it feels like some new or old term without years of demonization for that simple view is necessary.
free trade + non-intervention = classical liberalism
protectionism + intervention = communism
not sure if there's even been a state was protectionist and non-interventionist, as most states that are despotic enough to enforce legal plunder also tend to have imperial aspirations.
a state that has a 100% free market economy is likely to be a 100% free society, and thus not burdened by warmongering special interests that push the nation into interventionist policies.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
joecochran:But it feels like some new or old term without years of demonization for that simple view is necessary.
I think the reappropriation of "liberal" will tend to generate questions as to why the socialists adopted the name in the first place. The answer is of course that they wanted to glom onto a legacy of achievement that is not theirs.
To abandon the name "liberal" is to abandon our historical legacy. We have no reason to do that and every reason not to.
Just tell people you are a liberal from the non-communist right.
Steve Bachman: protectionism + intervention = communism
I don't necessarily agree that this would be altogether communism. I would say that today in the US we have a protectionist economy in many respects (tariffs, licensing, high taxation, etc) and none could argue that we are interventionist, but I could not see us as communist. I don't feel that protectionism is quite pure state property. Of course, the way it works in the US, we tend to act like everything IS state property that is only licensed to us for use so long as we pay a usage fee (taxes).
I only mean protectionism as meaning opposing trade with other nations. I am not even touching upon levels of economic intervention.
Could we say that Nazi Germany was in this catagory? I doubt they traded much with anyone else during the war, and they were definitely interventionist...
JoeCochran: Perhaps the move of the mainstream democrats toward labeling themselves "progressives," a more honest term, would allow that opportunity.
I had a similar thought. Could we have our word back now that you have finished with it? ... Damn, it's a bit battered! What have you been doing with it?
But I don't agree that "progressive" is a more honest term, any more than Liberal was. Not for a group of people whose policy is "Let's try socialism again!".
The 'ancient regime' was the absolute monarchy.
Joe, isn't the US arguably interventionist with all its regulation and taxation? It's not socialism or communism, but there are definitely elements of those systems in the US.
As for democrats, neither 'liberal' nor 'progressive' suits them as terms. I am sure they'll find something to reflect their true nature.
Juan:I've got a related question : What's the name for the political system known in french as "ancien regime" ? When libertarians were called liberals they opposed royal authority and mercantilism. What's the name for that old system libertarians fought against ? I ask because in spanish there's a word for it and is 'conservadores' - But that word translates into English as 'conservatives' wich has a rather opposite meaning.
The ancien régime (literally meaning pre-revolutionary) was a tense power structure roughly balancing out monarchical and aristocratic power, whose purpose was to maintain traditional aristocratic privilege through the state. It was most definitely not absolute monarchy, since the monarch could not even raise taxes or undergo any significant reform without calling up the assembly of the three estates. (It was in the face of state bankruptcy that Louis XVI convened the assembly that deposed him.)
The ancien régime is characterized by seemingly nonsensical institutions as the purchase of military commissions, which make no sense from our contemporary point of view but are perfectly sensible when viewed through aristocratic interests. The monopoly over military commissions kept the king from using the national army against them.
Any system where a privileged elite controls the state for its own benefit, which is quite characteristic of latin american countries such as Mexico (a hundred families own the entire economy), can be qualified as being ancien régime.
Since there was no equivalent experience in the english-speaking world, (the parliament controlled the British state to such an extent that revolution was avoided), there is no word in english for ancien régime. The closest thing may be toryism.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I would describe them as "the political class," the people who live through political careers. It has nothing to do with conservatism since they all want to radically increase the political side of society.
Theres no concrete term, which is a source of much trouble.
Conservative meaning liberal is a 20th century phenomenon as a result of opposition to New Deal fascism. All those that resisted the New Deal were labeled reactionary and "conservative" for wanting to preserve the status quo of liberalism.
Interestingly, monarchy was percieved as being "liberal" by 20th century fascists.
Peace
Stranger thanks for the correction.
Juan: Is there a word that conveys both the anti-libertarian position and conservative position (in the sense I've described) ?
How about mercantilist?
DBratton: I think the biggest problem you're going to have is that non-interventionism was an actual philosophy, whereas "isolationism" was just a polemical expression cooked up by the war party. I'm not sure isolationism has ever had a fixed real meaning.
There are several reasons why one would oppose interventions in other countries. One should also ask, why are people in favor of interventions. I'm not talking about reasons stated, but the real reasons.
"And what would then one call CATO's intervention and free trade, or a philosophy of protectionism at home and interventionism abroad?"
American Imperialism?
Honestly, what I have found is that when a term for such a philosophy cannot be found, you can invent one. Nietzsche and Foucault did it all the time.
I find this to be a very interesting discussion, as the ambiguity of labels has bothered me since I discovered the various shades of meaning. I so earnestly wish the words could be defined. I see it as a dangerous destruction of language, as discussed in The New American article, Losing our Language by Dennis Behreandt. "...to put it more plainly, in a 'more straightforward and right' manner, those who use language (words and deeds) to communicate in an incoherent fashion, to lie or deceive or to obfuscate, attack and undermine the basic foundations of human civilization." The article is available here: http://thenewamerican.com/node/4077
Good points. I also observed that especially English is deteriorating. This may have to do with intellectuals being "postmodern" and "deconstructionist", but furthermore not much value is placed on virtues like honesty, reliability, accuracy and that kind.
I've been thinking about the exact same questions recently so let share a few thought. I realize that some of what I am about to say has already been touched upon.
I think that the terms non-interventionist or interventionist and protectionist or free trade are all far too vague to use as a means of describing particular philosophies that already have names. Unless the aims of these positions are stated, then they are more or less useless terms.
For instance, if a country intervenes for the sake of acquiring resources, this might be termed mercantilism, or neo-colonialism, or perhaps imperialism. If this kind of interventionist foreign policy is coupled with free trade, then it may well lead to corporatism or crony capitalism.
If interventionism is proposed for the sake of some "humanitarian" cause, I'm not sure what we would call it, perhaps false philanthropy. This kind of interventionism proposed in tandem with protectionism is close to a model of American liberalism, or in other words social democracy.
Protectionism is also a tricky term, because at first glance it would appear to be a socialist policy, but of course, many American conservatives advocate protectionist policies, such as Pat Buchanan. He's not exactly a card carrying commie. Also, if you've watched the presidential debates then you've no doubt heard Duncan Hunter ramble on about how "China is cheating on trade."
As for the term isolationism, I think a case can be made that every combination of those four terms in one way or another isolates a country, and therefore I don't know if it's actually a useful term.
It's fairly obvious why a country that is non-interventionist and protectionist would be considered isolationist. They'd be like that kid at a party who's standing alone by himself in a corner.
Interventionism in general can be seen as isolating. Any kind of consistent foreign military adventurism will usually lead to a country being isolated diplomatically. Not mention that levying sanctions against other nations, and preventing your citizens from traveling to another country is rather isolating.
And lastly, many libertarians, who espouse a non-interventionist foreign policy and free trade with others, at one time proudly called themselves isolationists. They of course meant this in a very different way. As Murray Rothbard once explained: "This brand of "isolationism" meant, quite consistently, economic and cultural exchange to the uttermost (free trade, freedom of migration, friendship with all foreign peoples), coupled with the political isolating of the US government from all forms of meddling with and pushing around of the people of other countries."
Ron Paul used the term "Neo-isolationism" today on Face the Nation.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8540706587792587923&q=ron+paul+face+the+nation&total=29&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0