Political Theory

Re: Isolationism

Rabid — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:26:55 GMT

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

Re: Isolationism

DW89 — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 05:29:52 GMT

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."

Re: Isolationism

Torsten — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:44:41 GMT

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.

Re: Isolationism

don_sauvignon — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 00:50:56 GMT

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

Re: Isolationism

measles — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:48:27 GMT

"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.

Re: Isolationism

Torsten — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:10:24 GMT

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.

That's kind of the problem with all those labels. They are pressing more on emotion then they do actually define anything. Basically this leads to logical fallacies. The Anti-()isms are the most misleading ones. i.e. Someone claims to be an Anti-Communist. Let's say you oppose him on some issues. Immediately they cook up that you must be kind of a pro-Communist etc.

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.

Re: Isolationism

DBratton — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:37:59 GMT

Juan:

Is there a word that conveys both the anti-libertarian position and conservative position (in the sense I've described) ?

How about mercantilist?

Re: Isolationism

Inquisitor — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:22:37 GMT

Stranger thanks for the correction.

Re: Isolationism

Bostwick — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:11:09 GMT

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.

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.

Re: Isolationism

Juan — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:07:13 GMT

Well, political class sounds fine.

On the other hand, I've just checked this :

http://praxeology.net/GM-RSL-Pref.htm

And I see that Roderick Long is translating the french word "conservateurs" as "conservatives". In Molinari's works the "conservateurs" are the old political class (and they are royalists). And yet, in contemporary American(?) English, the meaning of the word 'conservative' sounds (is?) a bit confused, just like the word 'liberal'.

Re: Isolationism

Stranger — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:39:00 GMT

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.

Re: Isolationism

Juan — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:08:32 GMT

Ah, that's true. Now I remeber that (at least according to H. Spencer) the Tories were the war party while the Whigs supported free-enterprise and a contractual organization of society.

So, what word would you use to describe the elites that nowadays run Western society ? Though things are not as a bad as in Mexico, still the Anglo-Saxon countries are run by an oligarchy, right ? And such oligarchies are opposed to change because that would mean the end of their privileges. And, since they are opposed to change, they can be described as 'conservative' - This is also true with respect to the eco-socialist who want to 'conserve' the 'enviroment'.

Is there a word that conveys both the anti-libertarian position and conservative position (in the sense I've described) ?

Re: Isolationism

Stranger — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:47:04 GMT

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.

Re: Isolationism

Inquisitor — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:08:27 GMT

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.

Re: Isolationism

Brett_McS — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:07:50 GMT

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!".