Is War Conservative?

I originally wrote this for RevoluTimes on December 6, 2011

Of all the empty talking points presented as philosophical truisms, there is possibly no anecdote I find more obnoxious than the notion that being antiwar is necessarily a stance of the left. By antiwar I do not mean pacifism, but an opposition to the initiation of force and a general and healthy suspicion of the motives of the State and particularly when it engages in its most destructive and aggrandizing function: warfare.

When confronted with the Republican establishment narrative that Texas Congressman Ron Paul is a “leftist”, (I was recently told he’s actually to the left of Obama) because of his lack of zeal for preemptive war, I simply ask, “Were the Founders leftists as well?” Without missing a beat, the Fox News faithful will claim, “That was then, this is now. This isn’t the 18th Century.” It seems nothing gets passed these guys. Except for the fact that the non-interventionist foreign policy of the Founders was not due to some esoteric meme from a bygone era, but the product of historical and economic understanding gathered over the course of generations. Just as so-called conservatives rave daily about the abuses of State intervention domestically, the Framers understood all too well that governments do not miraculously become omniscient and flawless angels when it comes to intervening abroad. Were the leaders of the Republican Party as concerned with free markets and fiscal restraint as they claim, our ballooning overseas expenditures would not be an issue.

Arguably the two most famous of the Founding generation, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were very clear in their warnings to avoid taking part in war unnecessarily.

George Washington would caution in his farewell address:

“…Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all…the nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest…So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.”

Some years later, Jefferson would second Washington’s advice saying:

“…Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

Were Washington and Jefferson a couple of left-wing peaceniks? Or were they simply recognizing that nothing expands the size and scope of the State more than war? As Jefferson explained, a position of free trade among all nations creates the greatest incentive to avoid hostility. Prior to the spread of open trade and commerce, Europe experienced a long and gruesome history of conquest and wars, as the lack of trade resulted in each nation only able to consume what its own resources would provide; hence the desire for war. Through conquest and military force, not only could the resources of neighboring nations be consumed but conquering governments were presented with a new tax base to exploit as well. As the laissez-faire economist, Frederic Bastiat said, “When goods don’t cross borders, armies will.”

Bastiat and other proponents of laissez-faire avoided war, not out of some quaint idealism that other nations never posed a threat, but out of reverence for individual freedom and an appreciation for the power of the free market to transcend conflicts or disputes with foreign countries as both parties mutually benefit through peaceful, voluntary exchange. In fact, the policies of preventive war presented as a given today, are more akin to the philosophy of socialists and leftists than they are representative of the American right.

Writes Austrian economist Tom DiLorenzo,

“Like today’s neo-conservatives, nineteenth-century socialists branded classical liberals with the name ‘individualist,’ implying that classical liberals are opposed to fraternity, community, and association. But, as Bastiat astutely pointed out, he (like other classical liberals) was only opposed to forced associations, and was an advocate of genuine, voluntary communities and associations. ‘[E]very time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists [mistakenly] conclude that we object to its being done at all.’”

Compare the socialist mindset of coerced community and pseudo philanthropy with the banner of “humanitarian war” the U.S. government parades under on its quest to defeat totalitarianism. To object to the notion that the U.S. military should be involved with every conflict around the world is heresy within the Beltway, and it’s further suggested that if government doesn’t act, (via war) then nothing will be done at all.

The conservative movement in America that began in the late 1940s and early 1950s was born out of this classical, (true) liberalism, based on property rights, capitalism, fiscal responsibility and an unwavering desire to limit government. Contrary to what is considered gospel among the GOP rank and file today, some of the staunchest opponents to empire and searching for monsters to destroy was the Old Right. In a speech at the Heritage Foundation in 1991, founder of the American conservative movement, Russell Kirk opined,

“Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world,” Kirk said in his speech. “Now George Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats. When the Republicans, once upon a time, nominated for the presidency a ‘One World’ candidate, Wendell Willkie, they were sadly trounced. In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs…”

As Kirk illustrated, it’s no coincidence the so-called greatest presidents of the twentieth century we’re bombarded with in public schools, were all war presidents, and it’s also no coincidence those same presidents were responsible for some of the largest expansions of government at the time. Whether it was LBJ, George W. Bush or Barack Obama, Big Government and endless war go hand in hand. Prior to the shift of some Troskyites to the Republican Party in the 1960’s, a strong anti-imperialist fervor was a distinctive characteristic of the Old Right.

This common trait of prudence exhibited by the early conservative movement is perhaps articulated best by the most ardent defender of capitalism and freedom of the twentieth century, economist Murray Rothbard:

“It is in war that the State really comes into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and the society.”

If to be conservative is to value individual freedom, property rights, free trade and fiscal restraint, it must also be to guard against the influence of the State and to approach with caution every endeavor devised by it. If to be conservative is to oppose the billions in domestic spending that cause an unwarranted burden on the taxpayer, how does spending trillions overseas carry a lighter load? If to be conservative is to condemn the printing of money to rebuild roads here, should we not condemn printing money to bomb and rebuild roads abroad?  If we must forsake all of these principles for war, is war ever conservative to begin with?