What is a liberal or conservative stance on Foreign policy?

[Senator Spark]

I am currently taking a course in international relations and studying the theories. I found out that I lean libertarian and have a similar approach as Rand Paul of non-interventionism. What is liberal or conservative in regards to foreign affairs?

[Kingpoleon]

Liberalism and conservatism, on this particular issue, are more involved in the style of how you word your position than in the substance of your position.

[darklordoftech]

Liberalism and conservatism, on this particular issue, are more involved in the style of how you word your position than in the substance of your position.

More specifically, Republicans tend to talk about national security more while Democrats tend to talk about human rights more.

[SATW]

There really isn't a liberal or conservative type of divide on foreign policy.


It is more of a hawkish vs dovish approach, if we are speaking broadly and vaguely. If we go into much more detail then things get complicated.

Charles Krauthammer gave a speech, in 2004, to the American Enterprise Institute that accurately defines some of the major schools of thought in international politics and policy:

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20040227_book755text.pdf

1. Isolationism
2. Liberal Internationalism
3. Realism
4. Democratic Globalism


Ever since I read this work of Krauthammer's it has become my main guide to understanding foreign policy worldviews and why certain people believe certain things.

I do, however, believe Krauthammer should have also added a category for non-interventionism. While it is similar to Isolationism and ultimately is a vehicle for isolationism (in my view, at least) it is still not the same thing.

But, beyond that, it is a fantastic read and very informationial. From this list I consider myself a Democratic Globalist ("neoconservative" using the more common term). I believe in a strong, muscular U.S. defense and foreign policy but I believe there needs to be a balancing act between Idealism/Humanitarianism (Liberal Internationalism) and Self-defense and aggressive tactics (realism).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

My position is that there are various points where it is easier to distinguish liberal and conservative approaches to foreign policy. Alternatively, there are points where making any consistent distinction is very difficult. This tends to get muddled as different people may hold the same stances, or even use the same rhetoric, for different reasons. Liberal and conservative foreign policy approaches can be distinguished during, say, the Cold War, even though definitions for each were themselves never consistent. The 1990s were an era in flux, and the early years of the GWOT saw a brief firm consolidation of views on either side of the aisle. I think since 2008, things have gotten more fragmented—conservatives were on both sides of the Obama foreign policy, for example, and liberal rhetoric about the importance of the NATO system sounds more than a bit ironic.

[RINO Tom]

Depends who's in the White House.

[Orser67]

For me, trying to put the liberal/conservative dichotomy into foreign policy is a pet peeve. Opinions on abortion or healthcare really have nothing to do with foreign policy.

I see two main poles of foreign policy: internationalism and non-interventionism on the one hand, and realism vs. idealism on the other. Imo, Trump is a realist non-interventionist, Obama and Bush I were realist internationalists, Bush II and Reagan were idealist internationalists, and Clinton and especially Carter were idealist non-interventionists. How you group each president really depends on frame of reference; if you're coming from the perspective of Ron Paul then all of the recent presidents are strongly internationalist.

[RINO Tom]

My actual answer is that there will ALWAYS be some issues - in the context of their times - that should not be put on a left-right axis.  For example, while trade was once easily put on a left/right axis (both when the GOP was supporting protectionism in huge numbers AND when it was ardently pro-free trade, you could make the argument it was the more "conservative" position), but that is clearly not the case right now.  While you can place a "civil rights issue" like gay marriage easily on a left/right axis now, it's a lot more intellectually dishonest to say something like, "supporting civil rights was a strictly liberal position" of the 1960s when you had many conservatives in the North supporting it and liberals in the South opposing it; the divide was clearly more based on region, just as the divide today on trade is more about anti-establishment (and in some cases geography).  Foreign policy has never fit well on a left/right axis.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There are lots of different axes to consider. One of the more pertinent in my mind is the internationalist Vs nationalist mindset. Nationalists, who tend to be right-wing, emphasise the right of the nation to make unilateral decisions. They believe that nation-states need to struggle against each other, and that alliances should be primarily transactional. This can be rooted in a mercantist approach, that views national struggle as a quest for material and economic superiority; or an idealistic approach that states the country in question is a moral beacon of sorts; or a combination of both mindsets simultaneously. Internationalists view things a little differently, and they tend to be on the left. They will emphasise the importance of mulitaleral discussions, abiding by international law and formal structures like the UN. Left wingers will often regard national struggle rhetoric as deeply suspect, as they are sympathetic to notions of universal human rights held by all members of mankind (while right wingers are more attached to cultural relativism: Judeo-Christian values, muslim values etc).

Rand Paul is a good example: he is by all means a man disdainful of interventionism, but what unites him with his Republican colleagues is his dislike of the notion that the United States and its ruling elite/military should ever be made subordinate to the "international community".

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

while right wingers are more attached to cultural relativism: Judeo-Christian values, muslim values etc.

The perhaps great exceptions to this have been imperialism and more modern attempts by America to export its values. In the debates over intervention in, I want to say, Sudan in the 1880s, Liberals (in the formal party sense) argued against a war of Christianity against Islam in North Africa while Conservatives wanted, of course, to maintain the Empire. In a strange reversal of conventional wisdom, the George W. Bush administration did make the argument that American values could be universalized, and that freedom was something every soul strove for. Liberals on the other hand were forced to argue about the merits of "democracy at gunpoint" and debate sort of got distracted from more conventional arguments (such as whether or not America could even be called a force for democracy). There is a certain sort of conservative arrogance involved in thinking that the "Judeo-Christian West" could march anywhere and remake that place in its own image. In many casses (of course), conservatives themselves, as I'm sure you know, have long derided this approach, but it nevertheless has a historical current.

[OSR stands with Israel]

For me, trying to put the liberal/conservative dichotomy into foreign policy is a pet peeve. Opinions on abortion or healthcare really have nothing to do with foreign policy.

I see two main poles of foreign policy: internationalism and non-interventionism on the one hand, and realism vs. idealism on the other. Imo, Trump is a realist non-interventionist, Obama and Bush I were realist internationalists, Bush II and Reagan were idealist internationalists, and Clinton and especially Carter were idealist non-interventionists. How you group each president really depends on frame of reference; if you're coming from the perspective of Ron Paul then all of the recent presidents are strongly internationalist.

I would consider Reagan also an Realist Interventionist


W Bush was really the only President who was an idealistic Interventionist

[SATW]

For me, trying to put the liberal/conservative dichotomy into foreign policy is a pet peeve. Opinions on abortion or healthcare really have nothing to do with foreign policy.

I see two main poles of foreign policy: internationalism and non-interventionism on the one hand, and realism vs. idealism on the other. Imo, Trump is a realist non-interventionist, Obama and Bush I were realist internationalists, Bush II and Reagan were idealist internationalists, and Clinton and especially Carter were idealist non-interventionists. How you group each president really depends on frame of reference; if you're coming from the perspective of Ron Paul then all of the recent presidents are strongly internationalist.

I would consider Reagan also an Realist Interventionist


W Bush was really the only President who was an idealistic Interventionist

Read Bret Baier's book on Reagan and you'll change your identification of Reagan. His diaries are also the same in this regard.


Reagan was an idealistic interventionist who put realist interventionists in his cabinet  that were able to moderate his idealism.

[OSR stands with Israel]

For me, trying to put the liberal/conservative dichotomy into foreign policy is a pet peeve. Opinions on abortion or healthcare really have nothing to do with foreign policy.

I see two main poles of foreign policy: internationalism and non-interventionism on the one hand, and realism vs. idealism on the other. Imo, Trump is a realist non-interventionist, Obama and Bush I were realist internationalists, Bush II and Reagan were idealist internationalists, and Clinton and especially Carter were idealist non-interventionists. How you group each president really depends on frame of reference; if you're coming from the perspective of Ron Paul then all of the recent presidents are strongly internationalist.

I would consider Reagan also an Realist Interventionist


W Bush was really the only President who was an idealistic Interventionist

Read Bret Baier's book on Reagan and you'll change your identification of Reagan. His diaries are also the same in this regard.


Reagan was an idealistic interventionist who put realist interventionists in his cabinet  that were able to moderate his idealism.

Maybe personally but the policies he implemented himself was Realist Interventionism which I think matters more than what Reagan actually believed

[Intell]

My actual answer is that there will ALWAYS be some issues - in the context of their times - that should not be put on a left-right axis.  For example, while trade was once easily put on a left/right axis (both when the GOP was supporting protectionism in huge numbers AND when it was ardently pro-free trade, you could make the argument it was the more "conservative" position), but that is clearly not the case right now.  While you can place a "civil rights issue" like gay marriage easily on a left/right axis now, it's a lot more intellectually dishonest to say something like, "supporting civil rights was a strictly liberal position" of the 1960s when you had many conservatives in the North supporting it and liberals in the South opposing it; the divide was clearly more based on region, just as the divide today on trade is more about anti-establishment (and in some cases geography).  Foreign policy has never fit well on a left/right axis.

Supporting civil rights is a progressive position, while a conservative could support it, it would make him a progressive on this issue. Conversely a progressive could oppose civil rights but it would make him a reactionary on this issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republicans extrajudicially execute US citizen minors in Yemen, while Democrats win Nobel Peace Prizes and extrajudicially execute US citizen minors in Yemen

[Very Legal & Very Cool]

This thread just reminded how bizarre it is that we have on one hand, judeo-christian values, and on the other hand, Islamic values.

What, exactly separates Islam, or unites Jew and Christian? Sunni and Shia, orthodox and reform, Catholic and Protestant...what values do we attribute to these entire groups of different people and why are they spoken of in these mindless terms?

[RINO Tom]

My actual answer is that there will ALWAYS be some issues - in the context of their times - that should not be put on a left-right axis.  For example, while trade was once easily put on a left/right axis (both when the GOP was supporting protectionism in huge numbers AND when it was ardently pro-free trade, you could make the argument it was the more "conservative" position), but that is clearly not the case right now.  While you can place a "civil rights issue" like gay marriage easily on a left/right axis now, it's a lot more intellectually dishonest to say something like, "supporting civil rights was a strictly liberal position" of the 1960s when you had many conservatives in the North supporting it and liberals in the South opposing it; the divide was clearly more based on region, just as the divide today on trade is more about anti-establishment (and in some cases geography).  Foreign policy has never fit well on a left/right axis.

Supporting civil rights is a progressive position, while a conservative could support it, it would make him a progressive on this issue. Conversely a progressive could oppose civil rights but it would make him a reactionary on this issue.

Yeah, I think this is straight wishful thinking and trying to claim a legacy to give legitimacy to your current views, but I am fine with you believing what you just typed.

[Orser67]

For me, trying to put the liberal/conservative dichotomy into foreign policy is a pet peeve. Opinions on abortion or healthcare really have nothing to do with foreign policy.

I see two main poles of foreign policy: internationalism and non-interventionism on the one hand, and realism vs. idealism on the other. Imo, Trump is a realist non-interventionist, Obama and Bush I were realist internationalists, Bush II and Reagan were idealist internationalists, and Clinton and especially Carter were idealist non-interventionists. How you group each president really depends on frame of reference; if you're coming from the perspective of Ron Paul then all of the recent presidents are strongly internationalist.

I would consider Reagan also an Realist Interventionist


W Bush was really the only President who was an idealistic Interventionist

Read Bret Baier's book on Reagan and you'll change your identification of Reagan. His diaries are also the same in this regard.

Reagan was an idealistic interventionist who put realist interventionists in his cabinet  that were able to moderate his idealism.

Reagan was the toughest one for me to categorize since there were certainly elements of realism (e.g. selling weapons to Iran), but ultimately I think his foreign policy was most guided by a belief in free-market democracy and a hatred of Communism. Even his negotiations with Gorbachev proceeded because Reagan seemed to believe that Gorbachev honestly wanted to take his country in a free-market, democratic direction (Reagan also had a dream of a nuclear weapon free world).

I also didn't feel great about the categorization of Clinton. He took office at a weird time and was kind of in the middle of both poles. I think that "idealist non-interventionist" is a fairly uncommon position in post-WW2 U.S. history; even Carter shifted towards interventionism after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

while right wingers are more attached to cultural relativism: Judeo-Christian values, muslim values etc.

The perhaps great exceptions to this have been imperialism and more modern attempts by America to export its values. In the debates over intervention in, I want to say, Sudan in the 1880s, Liberals (in the formal party sense) argued against a war of Christianity against Islam in North Africa while Conservatives wanted, of course, to maintain the Empire. In a strange reversal of conventional wisdom, the George W. Bush administration did make the argument that American values could be universalized, and that freedom was something every soul strove for. Liberals on the other hand were forced to argue about the merits of "democracy at gunpoint" and debate sort of got distracted from more conventional arguments (such as whether or not America could even be called a force for democracy). There is a certain sort of conservative arrogance involved in thinking that the "Judeo-Christian West" could march anywhere and remake that place in its own image. In many casses (of course), conservatives themselves, as I'm sure you know, have long derided this approach, but it nevertheless has a historical current.

I would argue, though, that the distinction between idealistic conservatives and pragmatic conservatives are less important than you would think. Both the Bush administration and imperialism are good examples of that. Although both the invasion of Iraq and the imperialists had their share of people who truly believed that they were helping spread civilisation, both were also supported by conservative elements who believed that the US would be placed in an advantageous position by intervening. What unites them together (along with paleoconservative strands) is the belief that the nation state has a right, or even obligation, to make moves unilaterally. The fundamental difference between liberal interventionists and the Bush administration was that the former bases its values on a "universal human rights" system that (in theory) is shared by all peoples, while the latter believed that the United States acts as vanguard for such rights. To a liberal or left mindset, a nation using force without consent from the international order and its structures is a rogue bully; to a conservative, a nation that kneels before other countries is a cowed and controlled one.

[RaphaelDLG]

Liberals bang peace drums, stop shaving their armpits, abandon israel, smear our troops and burn the American flag while slashing the military budget and getting us attacked by radical islamic jihadists (a word that they refuse to say), while conservatives wear a cowboy hat and ride a nuclear missile falling down on the next country that they are zealously trying to nuke.

[SATW]

For me, trying to put the liberal/conservative dichotomy into foreign policy is a pet peeve. Opinions on abortion or healthcare really have nothing to do with foreign policy.

I see two main poles of foreign policy: internationalism and non-interventionism on the one hand, and realism vs. idealism on the other. Imo, Trump is a realist non-interventionist, Obama and Bush I were realist internationalists, Bush II and Reagan were idealist internationalists, and Clinton and especially Carter were idealist non-interventionists. How you group each president really depends on frame of reference; if you're coming from the perspective of Ron Paul then all of the recent presidents are strongly internationalist.

I would consider Reagan also an Realist Interventionist


W Bush was really the only President who was an idealistic Interventionist

Read Bret Baier's book on Reagan and you'll change your identification of Reagan. His diaries are also the same in this regard.

Reagan was an idealistic interventionist who put realist interventionists in his cabinet  that were able to moderate his idealism.

Reagan was the toughest one for me to categorize since there were certainly elements of realism (e.g. selling weapons to Iran), but ultimately I think his foreign policy was most guided by a belief in free-market democracy and a hatred of Communism. Even his negotiations with Gorbachev proceeded because Reagan seemed to believe that Gorbachev honestly wanted to take his country in a free-market, democratic direction (Reagan also had a dream of a nuclear weapon free world).

I also didn't feel great about the categorization of Clinton. He took office at a weird time and was kind of in the middle of both poles. I think that "idealist non-interventionist" is a fairly uncommon position in post-WW2 U.S. history; even Carter shifted towards interventionism after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Yea, this is a very good description of both Reagan and Clinton. Great post

[All Along The Watchtower]

Liberal stance on foreign policy = whatever stances Democrats take on foreign policy
Conservative stance on foreign policy = whatever stances Republicans take on foreign policy

[Zinneke]

Liberal stance on foreign policy = whatever stances Democrats take on foreign policy
Conservative stance on foreign policy = whatever stances Republicans take on foreign policy

Not all Democrats have what IR scholars would call a liberal stance on foreign policy.

Similarly, our perception in Europe is that there is a big divide in the GOP between the old neo-conservative guard of Bush II (which actually has a closer position to the liberal world view above, but is not afraid to put the multilateral system into question to advance state interests) and the more overtly jacksonian wing Trump sort of incarnates, that disowns any kind of multilateralism, and has no interest in exporting their values on a world stage other than a limited vision of American security and state interests. I'm interested in what Americans on here think of this divide in the GOP.

Its hard to forget Trump still hasn't actually engaged American forces the same way his predecessors have - Syria the notable exception but this was under extreme duress of the previous wing.

OP : my advice, learn about the theories, but then learn about the paticularities of foreign policy strands in your country too, and their economic and security interests. Don't reduce yourself to the macro-level theory when conducted foreign policy analysis. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Liberal stance on foreign policy = whatever stances Democrats take on foreign policy
Conservative stance on foreign policy = whatever stances Republicans take on foreign policy

Not all Democrats have what IR scholars would call a liberal stance on foreign policy.

Similarly, our perception in Europe is that there is a big divide in the GOP between the old neo-conservative guard of Bush II (which actually has a closer position to the liberal world view above, but is not afraid to put the multilateral system into question to advance state interests) and the more overtly jacksonian wing Trump sort of incarnates, that disowns any kind of multilateralism, and has no interest in exporting their values on a world stage other than a limited vision of American security and state interests. I'm interested in what Americans on here think of this divide in the GOP.

Its hard to forget Trump still hasn't actually engaged American forces the same way his predecessors have - Syria the notable exception but this was under extreme duress of the previous wing.

OP : my advice, learn about the theories, but then learn about the paticularities of foreign policy strands in your country too, and their economic and security interests. Don't reduce yourself to the macro-level theory when conducted foreign policy analysis. 

Yes, there is that divide in the GOP, though most are somewhere in the middle.

[Hammy]

Depends who's in the White House.