How to Defend Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy

Over the past few weeks I have had quite a few conversations with Conservatives which have led to a debate about interventionist versus non-interventionist foreign policy.  It usually starts with them attacking Ron Paul for one reason or another (check out this article on Midwest Spin for an example).  After I respond and question their criticism, it usually ends up being their disagreement with his foreign policy.

Foreign policy can be a very complex topic. I think that non-interventionists, for the most part, know why they support that policy much better than your typical interventionist. Many interventionists do not even understand the difference between non-intervention and isolationist.

If you support non-intervention you either have found yourself in a debate and had to defend non-intervention, or you will find yourself in one sometime in the near future. I have found there are a few things to keep in mind when you are in these debates:

1) Be ready to explain the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism. Isolationism is the foreign policy of North Korea. Non-intervention involves open dialogue, free trade, and minding your own business overseas. Two vastly different approaches. Just because you don’t support having a global military empire does not mean you are an isolationist.

2) Know some facts and figures. The United States has over 700 permanent military bases spread out across over 100 nations. Roughly 20% of the federal budget is military expenditures. There are facts and figures that give proof that 1) our military expenditures are financially unsustainable and 2) we most certainly have a foreign policy of intervention and global imperialism.

3) Be Ready to talk 9/11. Ask the interventionist why they think we were attacked. If they say it is because we are a free and prosperous nation, ask us how they expect us to be in perpetual warfare? By that logic, there will always be terrorists trying to attack us (unless we become a socialistic nation). Should we just constantly be fighting over seas until the end of time? Then explain the non-interventionist viewpoint: we were attacked here because we have been over there for over half a century; meddling in their affairs and maintaining a troop presence. Be absolutely sure to cite Chalmers Johnson’s great book Blowback and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. There are many more books on the subject you can cite, just make sure you read them!

4) Prepare for a frustrating conversation. Oftentimes, at least in my own experience, the interventionist will refuse to defend their view. If they say they don’t have time ask if there is a time in the future they will be able to talk. If they are on twitter and say they can’t discuss such a complex topic give them your email and say you would love to move the conversation to that. They may just end up making it about Ron Paul and how he has no chance of winning President. Explain you are interested in interventionism versus non-interventionism, not Ron Paul. One day Ron Paul will pass away and the discussion will have to move to his policies, not the man.

5) Remember your goal. Your goal is to start a dialogue and hopefully make the other party question their views, or at least create some sort of cognitive dissonance. They might not turn from interventionists to non-interventionists overnight, but they should start thinking a little harder about why they are interventionists. Present your views, question theirs, and defend your points.

Never be scared about talking foreign policy. The only reason there would be to not discuss it or try to avoid discussing it would be if you are not certain your view is better. If you don’t think your view is better, the responsible thing would be to figure out what you really believe! If your view is better, you have nothing to fear.

Good luck!

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5240-how-to-defend-non-interventionist-foreign-policy