It is not the responsibility of America to police the world or provide for the security of any nation other than our own.
Recently, a group known as the Conservative Action Project has been issuing "Memos to the Movement," meaning the conservative movement. All the Memos are signed by several significant conservative movement activists. The Memos address various policy issues and appear designed to present a unified and authoritative voice of conservatism and from which disparate activists can take both talking points and policy direction. Not every memo is signed by the same people, but there are some regulars.
The Purpose of the Conservative Action Project appears in the heading of the Memos.
The Conservative Action Project, chaired by former Attorney General Edwin Meese, is designed to facilitate conservative leaders working together on behalf of common goals. Participation is extended to leaders of groups representing all major elements of the conservative movement — economic, social and national security.
This alone is not objectionable although those of us on the paleo or alternative right should be forgiven if we see an attempt to perpetuate "three-legs-of-the-stool" movement conservatism in that last line. Most of the Memos so far have been largely acceptable from an alt-right standpoint although they have been predictably movementy. For example, the Memos on the Health Care Bill and the Stimulus Package provide wonkish critiques and measured responses but fall short of assailing them both as the unconstitutional usurpations that they are.
Unfortunately, the Conservative Action Project really showed its true movement colors with their latest offering on missile defense. The "national security" they refer to in their nod to the three-legged coalition does not seem to be the actual security of the United States, but the security of Poland, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Israel, etc. (Funny but I don't find protecting Poland anywhere in the Constitution.) The reaction on the alt-right has been harsh and deservedly so.
American Spectator (which by the way has been more open to debate on foreign policy than National Review or Weekly Standard, which are both hopelessly neocon) announced this new Memo as, "Conservative Leaders Speak Out on Obama Missile Defense Decision." Unfortunately, contrary to the title, this memo does not represent conservatism properly understood nor does it represent leadership on the subject of foreign policy.
The activists who signed this are right on many issues and have done much to advance the conservative movement over the years, but they couldn't be more wrong or less conservative than they were in this dud. I was particularly distressed to see that Richard Viguerie, who has been trending toward non-interventionism recently, signed it. Viguerie is on the Advisory Board of the American Conservative Defense Alliance, an organization dedicated to promoting non-interventionism among conservatives. I don't think this is the advice they were expecting from Viguerie.
I do not have sufficient space in this essay to point out all the problems with the Memo. A point by point critique will be the objective of a follow-up essay. But briefly, the "conservative leaders" are wrong on their fundamental premise. Contrary to what the signers seemingly unquestioningly suppose, it is not the responsibility of America to police the world or provide for the security of any nation other than our own. It is the constitutional responsibility of the American military to provide for the defense of America and America alone. The United States should not have offered a missile defense to Eastern Europe in the first place, so cancelling it now is a positive thing, not the "perilous" (Oh my!) decision that the Memo asserts. This is the conservative position. Their position represents bellicose, unilateral internationalism, as opposed to Obama's allegedly mushy liberal, multilateral internationalism.
Well, memo to the Memo writers, conservatism is not internationalist and neoconservative internationalism is not the opposite of Obama's liberal internationalism. It is the flip side of the same internationalist coin. The true conservative alternative to internationalism of either type is particularism, in this case what you might call America First mind-our-own-businessism.
This Memo is nothing more than the same ol' same ol' Cold War interventionism. It represents Cold War conservatism to the point of caricature. Endlessly repeating the word "appeasement" does not strengthen an argument. Conversely, it makes it look like they have no argument and must rely on emotion-laden buzz words. Justin Raimondo rightly calls them "living fossils," forever stuck in a Cold War mind-set. That is why this Memo represents anything but leadership. It is more like blind stand-patism.
Don't get me wrong. I am not criticizing them for embracing an old policy per se. As a conservative, I think conservatives should embrace old policies as a matter of course. The problem is that Cold War interventionism represented an aberration from the conservative wisdom of old. Whether or not this aberration was warranted in response to Communism is for another essay, but that threat is gone and no amount of Chicken Little fear-mongering about resurgent Russia is going to make it come back. The only Russian any American needs to worry about is Fedor Emelianenko.
The Cold War stand patters are trying to forever enshrine the aberration instead of returning to the original. Again this is neither conservative nor leadership. True conservative leadership would be to lead the movement away from costly, unnecessary, counterproductive, and unconstitutional interventionism back to the wisdom summarized brilliantly by George Washington in his Farewell Address and the policies encouraged by the pre-Cold War Old Right.
Here is another dud from the Conservative [sic] Action Project that appeared today.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/25/conservatve-leaders-speak-out
They are clearly stuck in Cold War interventionist police the world mode. Notice, however, that Richard Viguerie didn't sign this one. I wonder if he caught flack for signing the last one. Also, note that the President of the Free Congress Foundation signed it. This is very unfortunate. The late Paul Weyrich was already fully in the non-interventionist camp when he passed, and he would not have signed this nonsense.
[...] More … | | | | | | [...]
Mr. Phillips,
Another way of saying “perpetuate … movement conservatism” is ‘promoting a particular viewpoint generally accepted as belonging to a definable group for the purpose of sustaining it’. Stated the first way infers misrepresentation for the purpose of distorting consensus (we could argue that’s what you are doing), whereas stated the second way merely affirms and supports a consensus as it exists.
It seems to me Mr. Phillips is upset his is not the prevailing conservative sentiment rather than that it was altered, hijacked or misrepresented; and it is only his opinion the matter stands otherwise; an opinion polls have never once reflected in the 93 years since polls became a regular feature in politics, and rarely supported in the voting booth. Centrism in polls has always been far more pronounced, whereas isolationism (in either party) has enjoyed only the briefest of surges, and only until the next change of party. That would seem to make alternative/paleo-conservatism the fringe element, not neo-conservatism.
Hereafter, I will preface quotes from your article with ‘DP:”, except as are clear they are yours from context.
DP: “Movement conservatism”; “Movementy”; and “movement colors”
What you suggest by these is the center represents the fringe and the fringe the center. Taken together, these expressions imply any conservatism that is not your brand has only the trappings of a movement with none of the substance. Another way of saying this is: it lacks a definable direction and is wandering about trying to find one. A great deal of ink has been spent in espousing conservative (which you demote to mere ‘neo-con’ status) and libertarian thought within these and other pages you ungenerously dismiss as “movementy”. Even when simply expressed, however, these ideas are rich in substance any child can grasp. Paleo-conservatism, by contrast, has been rendered labyrinthine and nuanced though endless parsing of meanings to the point it has become contentious, slippery, and unpalatable to all but a handful of devotees willing to surrender autonomy of thought to the mutual self-congratulation common to elites. If consensus conservatives are “movementy”, how much more, then, is a fringe group that insists it is the real-deal while all others are frauds, and by separating themselves from and attacking the center sow nothing but discord and division in the ranks. Personally, I have no desire to be part of such movements – yours or that of a consensus. My interest is in keeping ‘personal freedom’ alive as long as possible. If a movement is necessary to that, I will support it, but not for the sake of adherence to the kind of regimented thinking you believe in (sorry). I love my country and the way of life we have created, however imperfect, and willingly risk censure for that every time I say so.
I have no problem accepting Mr. Phillips is a fellow conservative and never have; even as I challenged his fixation with cleansed-of-warts-conservatism. More importantly, I call on him to look beyond his insistence on ‘principles’ to recognize there are bigger challenges currently facing all conservatives (and anyone else concerned our freedoms are slipping from us) and to the survival of conservative preference of whatever stripe than squabbling over which of us is the more right in divining ‘the true meaning of foundational conservatism’; challenges this endless harangue does nothing to dissipate.
As for the non-word “movementy”, did you mean to say ‘movement-like’? I know I am not supposed to critique your writing style (sorry, I just couldn’t resist) and this is supposed to be so cute we are to think it infinitely clever, but what would have been so bad sticking to plain language all can follow without having to second guess your meaning? There are times for that kind of inventiveness, to be sure, but you indulge this over much, with the result your readers are left unsure as to meaning. You exhibit an obvious distain for good usage (or the little effort it takes to correct writing weaknesses) and clarity that is baffling in someone who professes greater acumen than those you scold. Yes, yes, I know you are very busy with no time for such niceties, though you do seem to have plenty of time defending the practice later. If you don’t know the right word or combination to use in a given situation, might I suggest a dictionary, a thesaurus and, by all means, a course in effective writing? Take the time to read your prose as if you hadn’t a clue as to what was in it (i.e., put yourself in the position of readers you already assume clueless else you wouldn’t hammer this stuff so often). On the assumption we are that clueless, rewrite it so that even us morons can’t mistake your meaning. Finally, look for new things to say, things that actually interest conservative readers and have some application to what is going on in our world. Being a Johnny-One-Note may have some advantage in perfecting arguments, but quickly sours on audiences dulled by repetition; especially when it is intentionally dismissive.
"…I don't find protecting Poland anywhere in the Constitution…”
You won’t find it excluded by the Constitution, either. The Constitution entrusts our government with the job of defending the nation in whatever guise consistent with other provisions and guarantees. There is no mention of ‘non-intervention’ in the affairs of other nations and no mention of isolationism, non-aggression, or a static defense that leaves it entirely to the enemy where, when, and how they may strike. If defending Poland, the Czech Republic, Georgia, and Israel serves to thwart the designs of aggressor nations, terrorists, and rogues for whom we are in line for attack once they fall, if we know the purpose of these aggressions is to cause us harm, if we know each small victory brings the objective closer, and everyone (including the nit-wit anti-war crowd) knows this is the case, it makes no sense you'd oppose it on the basis 'it is not our way of doing things'. Opposing it on the basis it doesn’t accomplish anything, maybe; vaporously concocted, irrational principle, no. If you won’t lend a hand defending your friends, who will you defend and who will standby you when it is your turn in the crosshairs? The three ex-Soviet-satellites you cited are worth defending on several scores: they serve as an early warning to Russia’s natural and historical aggression, they share our interests in global security and stability, they genuinely value their hard won independence from Russia that makes defection from us unlikely, and they give more than just lip-service to our kind of freedom. Israel stood by us and put up with our meddling in its affairs even when it would have been better to steer her own course. They did that partly in self-interest, but also from shared interests, values, and goals. Now, they count on us to not desert them when it matters. Taking your advice we do the ‘smart thing’ by cutting them loose. Sorry, I just don’t buy it.
“…does not represent conservatism properly understood…” presupposes you understand conservatism ‘properly’, which, so far, all you’ve managed is a tendency to parrot long dead conservatives (who can no longer answer for themselves) as to what their brand of conservatism means in ways they only contextually endorsed. This has much the same ring to it as that oft cited canard of the pacifist left that “War is never the Answer”. Okay, but what was the question? Never? How about some whacko decides you must die for his beliefs? Is war okay in that case, or must we bare our necks to the blow? Have you no opinion of your own, independent of dead colossi? Try to imagine they never spoke? How, then, without them and their august words to fill your pen do you make your argument that intervention in the affairs of others is never a good idea? What is it that makes non-intervention a fixed, never-to-be-transgressed rule? Under what circumstances might it be okay to bend the rule? Unless you can give good answers to these, you have no basis on which to scold others that ‘it isn’t the conservative way’. Nonsense!
Yes, there is a case for non-interventionism, but was never deemed an absolute the way you make it. Your own much cited colossi cautioned against involvement in the affairs of Europe (i.e., fascists and socialists) echoing the sentiments of the founders mainly because they worried we’d be corrupted by exposure to those movements, even in opposition to them. I submit, it is a bit little late for that now. Moreover, that kind of moral rigidity very nearly gave the Nazis, commies, and fascists a clear field to world conquest (aka, we’ll surrender with a clear conscience). I imagine your colossi might amend those verdicts realizing the trap that nearly put us in. They also worried we'd become an empire subjected to the corruption of great power (more valid), yet that too is less relevant to where we are now and what we do about threats to our remaining freedom. The continued erosion of liberty is the problem, not intervention, per se, other than as bears on our liberties. Non-intervention is a matter of respecting those nations and peoples who are no threat to us or our way of life. It is open to debate whether that also applies to those who threaten those in whom we have little or no direct interests (I assert and have asserted we do have some interest in defending anyone subjected to tyranny to the extent practical) or who threaten us only a little (you need to do some analysis before deciding each case), but it has never been a matter of respecting those determined to harm us or our proven friends.
DP: “I was particularly distressed to see that Richard Viguerie, who has been trending toward non-interventionism recently, signed it…”
If Mr. Viguerie has signed it, perhaps it is because he is reasonable enough he sees something you refuse to see; that non-interventionism is not an absolute, only a generality for which there are valid exceptions. And, when you are the lone superpower, those exceptions only multiply.
DP: “I do not have sufficient space in this essay to point out all the problems with the Memo. A point by point critique will be the objective of a follow-up essay”
That’s too bad because you always seem to have plenty of space for articles that say pretty much all you’ve said before. As much as I look forward to it, I doubt any follow-up respecting those problems is forthcoming simply because you have yet to return to any of the many points on which you deferred comment in past epistles and responses. An article actually detailing what you see as problems would make good on one such promise; and might be refreshing for the surprise that alone would illicit.
DP: “Cold War interventionism represented an aberration from the conservative wisdom of old…”
Rubbish. Teddy Roosevelt was no isolationist and no anti-interventionist. Nor were any other presidents prior to Teddy with the notable exceptions of Jefferson, JQ Adams, Fillmore and Wilson; and even theirs must be qualified. The rest gave no more than lip service to non-intervention. I include Whigs, Republicans, Democrat, and unaffiliated presidents in this assessment as, prior to Teddy, all can be said to have dispensed predominantly conservative policies and values.
The myth of interventionism rests entirely on several utterances regarding policy rather than actual policy. Among these are: to “avoid entangling alliances” (Washington), “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none” (Jefferson), and the U.S. "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own” (J.Q. Adams). The occasion of these remarks was the relative weakness of the republic and the enmity of Europe, rather than a distinct guiding principle, moral absolute, or eternally smug self-assurance. It wasn’t long before even Jefferson (the arbiter of ‘true’ principles) was conniving in the affairs of Barbary pirates, British merchants, African princes (interfered in the slave trade), sovereign Indian tribes, territorial expansionists, Mexican mavericks, and Caribbean adventurers.
“[Our] object [in this hemisphere] is to introduce and establish the American system, of keeping out of our land all foreign powers, of never permitting those of Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our nations.” –Jefferson to Monroe, 1823.
This is selective anti-interventionism of a tall order wherein Jefferson insisted Europeans stay completely out of America’s affairs, but would not hold the U.S. government or her citizens to the same high standard regarding the affairs of its southern neighbors or even to weak nations the other side of the pond. Therefore, Jefferson could not have looked on non-intervention as a moral or guiding principle of governments as much as a policy protecting America’s interests (else, we must assume he was a complete hypocrite and scoundrel).
Even John Quincy Adams, who gave us the clearest expression of a strict non-interventionism, did not keep to it without exception. Like Jefferson, he was selective in his non-intervention where slavery was concerned; and supported measures discouraging slave collection in Africa. Adams appears to have been more serious about non-intervention than those who proceeded or followed after. Yet, even his seemingly unequivocal statement of it is capable of more than one interpretation, with the latter being a simple recognition that the United States, in 1821, was in no position to export its political philosophy any more than it could challenge European military might; however much we might believe in its rightness and appeal (i.e., moral quandary it cannot be okay leaving so many others in abject bondage knowing, as only we did, the blessings of real freedom). There were a great many Americans engaged in exporting our ideas (‘filibusters’), and this was a grave concern to the President they would provoke a European reaction. He was telling our filibusters he would not defend their activities in Mexican and Caribbean territories in clear violation of the Neutrality Act of 1794, and that was the real context of Adams’ remark.
As for Fillmore and Wilson, Fillmore never had to invoke it and Wilson abandoned it the moment it became inconvenient (sent Black Jack Pershing charging into Mexico, encouraged Panamanian revolutionaries, dabbled with British spies, and reversed himself time after time throughout WWI and the League of Nations morass. Of course, Wilson was a Progressive and you can validly argue his hypocrisy was no reflection on conservative principle, I merely bring it up to illustrate Americans lacked the insistence on this particular principle you believe so strongly and widely embraced. The majority of Americans of the time applauded Wilson’s interventions, proved by their enthusiasm for Pershing in Mexico and by their own change of neutrality when provoked (even non-interventionist sentiment was conditional). Many accepted Wilson assertion we were fighting Europe’s war to ‘safeguard democracy’ (hardly what we’d expect of strict non-interventionists); which would have been true of Nazi Germany but no more true of Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany than of Lloyd George’s Britain or Briand’s France. German U-boats threatened our shipping and cost us lives, but so did British frigates. The British were just a better spinning German aggression into an American anxiety. Wilson was vocally more the isolationist than any Republican of his day and clearly no conservative. What does that say about pre-WWI America that it supported first his neutrality but even more his energetic response to German provocation?
Presidents may be imperfect expressions of the public will, yet they do reflect attitudes better than most barometers. Up to about 1900, the nation was overwhelmingly conservative in its belief in foundational principles. If the sentiment was not overwhelmingly outraged by every deviance toward intervention, how can it be said (as you assert) that that was our prevailing sentiment prior to the Cold War. From the end of WWI through the early-1950s, your remark has somewhat greater validity, but only as a conservative subtext and growing myth of an isolationist, anti-interventionist past among fringe elements.
DP: “Chicken Little fear-mongering about resurgent Russia”
It is only “Chicken-Little” if unfounded. Otherwise, it is prudent to be aware of threats, something you engage in at least as much as we do, or why else the repeated angst?
Russia showed ample interest in staking a claim on the new world as early 1741, despite its claims were untenable. For more than a century, Russia challenged American sovereignty over its territorial claims (as well as those of Spain, France, Britain, and Canada), sometimes to the point of mulishness. Russia’s foreign relations are fraught by a basic insecurity that comes of too much border with too many alien, adversarial and mistrusted cultures. This same insecurity driven aggressive territoriality has been in evidence in all its relations with Poland, Germany, Austria, Ukraine the –stans, Moldavia, Hungary, Lithuania, and Istanbul, Persia, India, Indonesia, Korea, China, Mongolia, and Japan going back many centuries.
From 1919 through 1923, Russia crushed one independent neighbor after another in what proved the most massive land grab in history, forcibly bootstrapping itself from backward and unloved cousin to world power as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that kept the world in a state of anxiety for the next 65 years. In 1920, Hardcore American anti-interventionists (not unlike Mr. Phillips) insisted Soviet Russia was no threat and would never be a threat to the U.S., and condemned Wilson for his ‘abandonment of principle’ (over siding with ‘White-Russians’ against the Reds). Their uninformed opinion ignored three centuries of aggressive Russian expansionism that put it repeatedly on collision courses with Europe, Constantinople, China, India, and the U.S. It also ignored the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of dissenters to the Bolshevik conquest.
Today, Russia’s top priority is fossil-fuel, and that is increasingly driving Russian behavior in keeping with past patterns as will almost certainly erupt in clashes with the west over ownership, production, and preservation rights. Already, Russia is claiming oil rights in more than half the Arctic basin. While the west wrangles endlessly over competing claims and bogus environmental obstructionism, Russia is moving ahead with plans to drill. This may seem like “chicken-little” fear-mongering to Mr. Phillips, but we have already witnessed resurgent Russia bullying its weak neighbors into compliance over gas transmissions, trumping up fake casus belli with which to attack tiny Georgia, and parading its revamped and still highly lethal military in deliberate attempts at provoking western reactions it can then use as grounds for complaint and greater belligerence. Russia is a great people frustrated by externalities over which it has no control, and having super-power ambitions that consistently lags the importance, prosperity, and resplendence of nations it dwarfs in untapped resources, potential, and sheer size. I don’t see Mr. Phillips has done any serious background checks into this on his own account or cited any economic, oil, military, diplomacy, or historical sources supporting his claim none of this matters, and that ours is fear-based and not simple prudence. Nobody here suggests Russian resurgence has risen to the point it requires we go to war with Russia, and it is our hope things never reach that state, but it has reached the point we do need to signal Russia (as often as necessary) we have no reason to appease her aggression either. Russia was a worry to its neighbors long before communism warped its outlook and objectives and it remains a concern now.
DP: “…forever enshrine the aberration instead of returning to the original…”
Mr. Phillips has shown, by this and earlier remarks and articles, his knowledge of our foundation is sketchy and based more on a strong belief in hand-me-down myths and half-truths than in scholarship or even the crude research any interested amateur can manage with the tools the Internet provides. He makes repeated claims of a greater-than-thou understanding of fundamentals for which he has yet to provide a scintilla of evidence, and is unprepared to give answer whenever challenged. I submit, therefore, his is no more than an attempt to define what conservatism is and how we must think (if we wish to wear the conservative label he regards the preserve of those who share his particular myopia). For myself, I dislike such distinctions as paleo- and neo-, and view them as abetting the interests of liberty’s adversaries. Nor do I regard conservatism as an ideology the way socialism is an ideology (libertarianism perhaps, conservatism no). Rather, it is a rejection of such confines and of the radicalism that endangers the freedom that allows each of us to think independently, an unwillingness to follow blindly, and the recognition change is warranted only so far as an injustice sufficiently outweighs the injustices and dislocations the change, itself, creates. His arguments regarding ‘conservative principle’ simply do not stand up on close inspection, and he would be better served challenging those assumptions than haranguing others over an ideological deviance until he has some fresh points to make or brings something to the table more constructive.
Point.
Set.
Match.
Stapler.
I'm shocked, just shocked, that Dr. Phil agrees with Bob against me. You two should form a mutual admiration society.
First of all, as I have said over and over again, I have never claimed that my belief is more mainstream. It isn't. That is partially what I am complaining about when I grouse about "mainstream" conservatism. Isn't that an admission that mine is then not mainstream? However, I do find the assumption among many that there is some inherent virtue in being "mainstream" and some necessary flaw in being "fringe" (a pejorative term that gives away this bias) to be annoying. I agree, wanting to follow the Constitution as the Founders intended is a "fringe" idea today. I believe that is an indictment of the non-fringe, not the fringe. I'm not running for office. I'm trying to move the debate. So what difference does it make that my position is numerically fringe? What are its merits? As de Tocqueville noted this herd following centrism mentality is a peculiarly American impulse.
You and Dr. Phil seem to have a lot of time on your hands? (Do you have a job?) Briefly, war is always destructive. For both parties. War is generally not conservative. The only scenario where war is conservative is defensive war. Then war is necessary to conserve your society. So if Canada invaded the Upper Peninsula then it would be conservative to repel that and almost no Americans would oppose it. As a rule of thumb, if a significant number of Americans oppose a war it probably should not be fought. Who would need convincing, except maybe some hard core Quakers, that war was necessary if Canada invaded? Far off foreign wars have domestic opposition precisely because they are not clearly essential for our security.
I concede that there are people with generally conservative dispositions who think our foreign interventions are necessary for our safety and security and are thus conservative actions. I think these people have been sold a bill of goods. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that Russia has some intention of rolling across the Bering Strait and retaking Alaska, or that a mighty Jihadist army is poised to roll into New York Harbor and make us all bow to Mecca as was commonly asserted during the height of war fever. I think it is consistent with a conservative impulse that the “do something” position requires the burden of proof against the do nothing position. You accuse me of having a reflexive position, but the real reflex is the pro-interventionist magnification of every threat and reflexive defense of every intervention past, present and future.
But our war efforts have not only been justified in the name of our safety and security. They have also been justified in the name of toppling dictators, spreading democracy, affirming universal human rights and equality, as an imperative of America’s universal nationhood, etc. Not all conservatives who support our Middle East policy made this their priority, in fact I think most made our safety and security their priority, (which is one reason why I think pro-war conservatives are salvageable) but it infected the pro-war rhetoric of almost all of them. Read Bush’s Second Inaugural for the quintessential manifestation of this. This is not conservatism, and this is not a debatable point. It is inherent in the definition. This is Jacobin radicalism. It can no more be conservatism than it would be to argue that the revolution of the proletariat is conservative.
You suggest that I think conservatism was “hijacked.” Many have made this case. Sam Francis comes to mind. But I have generally avoided (not entirely incase obsessed Phil drags up some quote from our pasts arguments) making this argument because hijacking implies resistance on the part of those being hijacked. I’m not sure American conservatism as a whole ever much resisted. Some did. Neoconservative ideology was easily grafted into Cold War conservatism. The original post-war conservative movement deserves criticism for being more worried about communist expansion abroad than it was the slow march of socialism through our institutions at home. So the interventionism that pervades conservatism today is simply a left-over Cold War mentality forever in search of an enemy. What I would argue is that what now goes by the name conservatism is not. Now you can argue that my type of conservatism has little appeal, but that is immaterial to the issue at hand. The question is one of the meaning of terms.
You accuse me of ideology, but world democratization by force of arms is the real ideology. Why a conservative would want to avoid citing figures in the past is beyond me, but if you want a modern scholar see Claes Ryn. (Google Claes Ryn and Jacobin and read away.) Wanting to actually follow the Constitution and restore the Republic is not a systematic ideology. It is simply more conservative by degree. Given how far we have strayed it would be fair to call it reactionary even, but a systematic ideology (like libertarianism, Marxism, or Jacobin neo-conservatism [especially second generation neo-conservatism – for example Kristol II vs. Kristol I]) it is not. Unrealistic? Absolutely. But Ideology? No.
Regarding history, I think it is silly to consider Wilson a non-interventionist. He was the quintessential liberal internationalist. This little thing called the League of Nations comes to mind, which was championed by liberal internationalists and opposed by heartland conservatives. In fact the doctrine is now named after him in some cases, Wilsonian interventionism. Wilson used non-interventionist rhetoric to get elected which is proof of my contention that non-interventionism was at the time the heartland belief, opposed primarily by urban liberal internationalists. FDR also initially ran on a non-interventionist platform, but it was a ruse. Is he a non-interventionist now also?
Prior to the turn of the last century, things do not break down as well along conservative liberal lines. Prior to that our wars do not fit the interventionist vs. non-interventionist point I am trying to make. (Much of where people stood on war at the time had to do with what effect it would have on slavery expansion and the North South balance of power.) The Mexican American War, the Wars against the Indians, etc, (essentially wars of conquest and expansion) whatever their merits or faults, were not Jacobin crusades to bring democracy to the Indians or the Mexicans. While I wouldn’t necessarily call their ends conservative, they were certainly illiberal. This dichotomy begins to become evident around the Spanish American War where it could be said that conservative elements were among those opposed to that war. Populist and conservative elements overwhelmingly opposed our entry into WWI and WWII.
I’m not sure what the point was of bringing up Teddy Roosevelt. TR was a self-proclaimed progressive. His bellicosity was motivated by his nationalism.
As for my prose style, why do you care? If it is really that bad then you should be glad because you don’t want me to be effective at communicating a perspective with which you disagree. Pardon me if I’m skeptical that you are trying to give me helpful advice. Your point is simply to needle me and you hope score points against the substance of my essay. Why not just stick to the substance of my essays? When you chimed in on my last article, I went back and looked at some of your articles to figure out where you were coming from. I was underwhelmed. The word pedantic comes to mind, and I found them excruciatingly mind numbing to read. You might want to consider brevity given the forum. Just some friendly advice, of course.
Dan: I'm retired after a long and successful career.
And not to take away from Stapler's dissection of the inanity of your “fringe” views (the whole “race matters” and “natural hierarchal social order” thing that underlies your world view), I’m in awe of your insight that “war is always destructive”.
This is indeed profound. Who’d a thunk it? It’s a great basis for forming a political program (oh yeah, I forgot. You don’t actually talk about the actual real world implications of your pontifications; just the pontifications themselves.). But as far as acting on this brilliant piece of analysis, did you by any chance get a chance to listen to Obama’s UN speech?
I said once before that political philosophy is best understood not as a straight line with opposing ends, but as a circle. The fringe on the Right and the fringe on the Left tend to share similar views about things (racial segregation, appeasement and isolationism, etc.). They just come to their beliefs by different paths.
Phil, I knew you were retired after a long and distinguished career of conservative political science scholarship … oh wait … no … not so much. I was asking about marathon post Bob.
But that you buy into the whole fringe as epithet thing is predictably simple-minded of you. I am happy to be counted among a fringe that includes Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, etc.
And while I don’t accept all your characterizations above, I’m not inclined to rehash all that for the sake of our strange obsession with me. Being said to lack profundity by your unnuanced mind that apparently slept-walked through poly sci 101 is more than a bit amusing.
Dan:
Remember, I am not the author of such intellectual gems as “natural hierarchal social order” and “race matters”, but I don’t mind reminding people about the things you really believe. It kinda puts things into perspective, doncha know. I know it’s embarrassing to you to have me bring this stuff up again. I would be too if I actually believed that bilge.
I’m the guy who believes that “values matter” not a person’s skin color, ancestry (as in did they come from the right parts of Europe?), or their “kith and kin”. My respect for Grandpappy Amos notwithstanding, I know that makes me a sub-intellectual, but it’s a burden I’ve come to bear with some pride.
Since you brought up the subject of “scholarship”, all I have to offer is a Ph.D. in the subject from a real university, coupled with a dozen or so years of actually participating in the political process — not a self-taught correspondence course in political polemics. [Your “expertise” and education is psychiatry, correct? Which naturally makes you a premiere political philosopher, and naturally brings you to question the “scholarship” of others who actually have a relevant education and practical experience as well. I wonder what Freud would think?] Not that I have anything against people who use their minds to broaden their understanding of an issue outside the university or real life experiences, but as I often say to the loonies on the Left, believing something strongly (like “race matters” or there’s a “natural hierarchal social order”) doesn’t really make it true. But it does get you recognized, and I’m always happy to recognize the things you stand for so I can stay as far away as possible.
As for pointing to Sam Adams and Patrick Henry as examples of, I suppose, the kind of “fringe” guy you like to believe you are, the one tiny difference between them and you is that they actually proposed policies and took actions based on their beliefs. They didn’t relegate themselves to bloviating and pontificating about political ideology, and then run for the tall grass someone asked them to give real world examples of what they actually meant by what they said. How exactly does one translate a “natural hierarchal social order” into practical policy anyway? [And I need a more current example than 1860 Georgia].
Nevertheless, it is good to have you drop in again every once and a while, if only to remind people what it means to actually believe the things you profess to believe but won’t really defend, other than to ask other people if they have a job while telling us that war kills people, or some other profundity. I suppose it does get lonely at the other website where, like the Fringe Left, the only people who visit are people who already buy into your monochrome vision of who constitutes the right kind of people. Since no one is likely to challenge your beliefs there, I guess it can make you kind testy to see other people recognize your tripe for what it is, and not buy into it.
First of all, if Phil agrees with me, perhaps it is because there is some cause for agreement. Yes, Phil and I agree on more than we disagree, but that is because we don’t stretch reality to fit our own preconceptions the way you have in this and other articles. If you have cause for complaint of this, perhaps it has something to do with the dismissive attitude in which you write about us.
Is there inherent virtue in being part of the mainstream? That is actually a better question than you make it. Yes, I believe there is some virtue or merit in it, and more virtue in it than to be found in playing the perpetual gadfly. At the same time, I make no aspersions on belonging to fringes unless as a means to snub others. Some belong to fringes primarily as a matter of self-interest or from shared opinion, but my remark was directed only at those who suppose that confers superiority. Had you merely referenced paleo-conservatism as an alternative view worth considering rather than making it the holy grail of conservatism, I might have supposed you something other than a self-assigned fringe type. Some may rightly think themselves superior on some rational point (aka, give generously of their time and wealth, make major contributions to society, notable accomplishments, risk life to save others, &c), but thinking yourself superior on a basis of viewpoint ignores you have no monopoly on such views, and committing yourself to that opinion confers no particular merit. Those belonging to fringe groups acquire this assumption of exclusionary superiority almost without exception and is a hallmark of the type; so, yes, we can broadly ascribe this much ‘un-virtuosity’ to those who so associate – especially as they remonstrate against those who don’t. The fact Tocqueville noted the herd-mentality trap does not confer superiority on the elitist. All it really does is tell us we need to think occasionally outside whatever particular box into which we have fallen; the outside-the-mainstream paleo-conservative no less than the ordinarily disengaged from politics American.
I never said you believe your views more mainstream. Au contraire, your attitude seems more like: your views are so patently ‘obvious’ and ‘superior’ to ours that something must be wrong with us and the rest of ‘mainstream-conservatism’ that we don’t fall at your feet in humble self-disgust. What I did say is you act upset that your views don’t dominate the consensus, all the while despising association with the consensus; not that your views represent the consensus. Clearly, you both relish being ‘outside the mainstream’, yet also crave mainstream approval. I suppose we all do this some, but you’ve got a serious case of ‘respect-me, despise-you’ syndrome.
If time spent responding to the arguments of others constitutes too much “time on [our] hands”, I recommend you count the number of times you’ve responded to me and Phil versus the number of times I’ve responded to you. Latest count has you leading the pack. Yet, you aren’t completely wrong I have time on my hands for this when there are valid points to be made and not just ‘rhubarb exchanges’. If I respond to you, it is partly because, left unanswered, others may be gulled into thinking you’ve won the day based on unchallenged assumptions. I am happy to see you’ve responded with something more than just barbs (I will come to those shortly). Also, if I seem to have more time for scribbling, perhaps it is because I type with all ten fingers without having to constantly reference what they are up to, all the while attending to other matters (i.e., multitasking). Yet, I do have a dark secret behind my verbose scribbling … I really enjoy writing (OMG!). But, seriously, I do have a mild physical handicap (chronic facial pain) that limits my extracurricular activities to those avoiding constant pain, making writing one of the few joys left me. Honestly? I’d rather be sailing, but that hasn’t been an option for some time. I can still manage some occasional physical stuff on my good days (replaced ball joints in my truck yesterday), as long is it doesn’t involve excessive rapid-motion, bounce, strain or wind on my face. On bad days, writing is about all I can manage. As you spend nearly as much time responding to Phil as he does you, can we assume you are similarly handicapped?
As to: “Do you have a job?” Of course I do, and a fairly important one; even if I do say so. I keep a large industrial plant running smoothly and make improvements to it, day after day, 365 days a year. I take some modest pride in the work I do, so much so my boss expresses some satisfaction with it and rarely complains of output. I long ago learned to work effectively rather than hurriedly-busily so mostly these are productive hours. Even so, I spend more rather than fewer hours at my job than most folks (6-7 days/week, 10-13 hours/day). Some of this time is after-hours and weekends keeping an eye on things, and cleaning up loose-ends from the week, and that’s when the multitasking comes in handy. With the face-pain, I’d easily qualify for disability, but I’m much too hyper for that. If this is what I can do with a handicap, just think how much more I could accomplish without it. Care to give us an idea of your work load that you can ‘waste’ so much of it?
Yet, like you, I don’t see this as a waste of time. I am engaged in setting the record straight and in ‘cultural warfare’ to salvage something of the magnificent freedom bequeathed to us. How can my job be more important than those?
DP: “…war is always destructive.” If I had a nickel for every time that old fiddle has been played, I’d be a billionaire. Always is a long time. Can you think of nothing constructive that has come of any fight. How about our American Revolution? Was that only destructive or was it also constructive? Civil War, WWII, Korea and Vietnam? How about Charles Martel’s arresting the Muslim onslaught in 732 A.D., without which we’d now be bowing to Mecca? How about David’s slaying of Goliath (nothing against Goliath personally) without which there’d be no monotheism leading eventually to our Enlightenment? Did nothing positive come from any of those? Oops, both of those meet your test of self-defense; but, not our own revolution which we could have avoided and took a hand in starting. The American Revolution spawned freedom movements around the globe that continue to this day, the American Civil War ended slavery in this country and encouraged abolition elsewhere, WWII stopped Nazi aggression and ended the Holocaust before it could be completed, Korea and Vietnam successfully contained communist expansion in the Far East and exhausted communist energies elsewhere. I agree with you to the extent war is to be avoided in general, but not to agreeing to feel-good, makes-us-superior to anyone who makes preemptive war for valid cause. We could have stayed out of WWII until the Nazis had Europe and Russia safely under wraps and Asia and the Pacific were firmly in Japan’s sphere, but then, had they come at us (as was definitely in the game plan), we’d have been hard-pressed to stop them. Sorry, but the ‘war is always destructive’ is self-indulgent sentimental nonsense because it ignores both who the real aggressors are and that the alternative is to supinely yield to every aggressor wannabe. Of course it is destructive, but, as history shows, something positive can also come of it, given we’re already in it and have the inclination. No doubt, you think, because the damage of which terrorist are capable is insufficient to kill very many of us (disputable), that we can safely ignore it or treat it as simple crime. I don’t propose that I and mine will be sacrificed on the altar of that hypothesis.
Because we support this particular fight, you non-interventionists berate us as warmongers and interventionists. Nothing could be further from the truth. There have been ample opportunities to have meddled in the affairs of others we declined and urged our government to avoid. The real difference between us, then, is we don’t ignore real threats. We deal with them while still small enough they don’t become more deadly. And, whether you believe it or not, this has (so far) been more a blessing than a curse to those countries against whom we fought. We did not conquer Europe or Asia, we delivered them from twin evils. Likewise, we liberated Iraq from a regime more deadly than all that has befallen under our occupation. It has made us more secure (even if you refuse to acknowledge that) as evidenced by the dozens of attacks stopped before they could be borne out; in large part because we disrupted terrorist networks and gathered intelligence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan where interdiction is effective. Doing that from within our borders relying on electronic intelligence and almost no human intel was plainly ineffective. If you are relatively safe now, it is largely because we did take this fight to the enemy.
DP: “…if a significant number of Americans oppose a war it probably should not be fought.” Are you sure you want to make that particular argument? Because the obvious corollary to it is: if a significant number of Americans favor war, it probably ‘should’ be fought. At the announcement of Operation Iraqi Freedom but before the anti-war crowd got wound up, polls showed an overwhelming majority of Americans favored invasion. Even by the time of the invasion itself after nine months of constant anti-war hyperventilation, diplomatic arm-pulling, human-shield threats and vitriolic Bush-hating, public-opinion still favored invasion this side of the pond. By your own argument, then: what matters opinion if it is wrong? Especially if it gets more of us killed than otherwise?
DP: “…Far off foreign wars have domestic opposition precisely because they are not clearly essential for our security.” They are ‘not clearly essential’ only to those who refuse to look beyond their own preconception of what constitutes both threat and the need to respond proactively. Your whole argument turns on the idea America is as safely isolated by great distance today as it was in the time of John Quincy Adams when he voiced his now famous non-interventionist remark. In a time when ICBMs can reach our shores in a matter of minutes and mega-death can be delivered via a thermos full of bio-weaponry via one of our own planes, and even our planes are turned into weapons against us, that pond between us and them doesn’t provide nearly the protection it once afforded; your Canada analogy not withstanding. 9/11 and similar attacks have proved both how much the world has shrunk and how dedicated this particular enemy is to killing us. How many more must die before you isolationists and pacifists take these guys seriously?
DP: “The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that Russia has some intention of rolling across the Bering Strait and retaking Alaska, or that a mighty Jihadist army is poised to roll into New York Harbor and make us all bow to Mecca as was commonly asserted during the height of war fever.” What, now I need your approval to defend myself? I must wait for further proof before I can take steps to prevent another 9/11? Horse-feathers! It is you who must prove to us we should be more understanding and await events, even if that means some us must die. The global jihad has proclaimed war on us and their intention to subject us to sharia. They make no bones of this. Your argument is a red-herring misrepresenting what we have heretofore argued, and beguiles the unsuspecting into believing there is no question of Islamic aggression. As to Russia, I only urge we keep a watchful eye and stand by our promises to allies, given recent Russian saber-rattling and aggression. Anything less is stupid.
I can find nothing in the definition of ‘hijacking’ to suggest resistance on the part of those subjected to it is implied or necessary. Coercion, yes, but that doesn’t always involve resistance; be it active or passive. Sometimes, there is even a total or near-total ignorance the thing has been stolen. What it does imply is, if we knew of the hijacking, we’d probably object. However, there is nothing to say this objection needs be obvious, strenuous, or even stated for there to be a valid hijacking (Remember those school bullies who took your lunch money? Did you complain or keep your mouth shut?). Be that as it may, the ‘perception of hijacking’ does describe the way many self-labeled paleo-conservatives regard non-paleos. It also fairly represents your own many comments regarding the ‘misrepresentations’ we make regarding ‘true-conservatism’; especially as regards non-interventionism. After all, didn’t you say of interventionism it “…does not represent conservatism properly understood…”. If you do not regard this as a hijacking of ‘true-conservatism’, why else have you been making such a fuss we misrepresent and misunderstand it? I have already shown how strained is the paleo / pacifist insistence on perfect isolationism, how the founders viewed it more a question of ‘spheres of influence’, and how little they followed the model for it you allow.
DP: “…world democratization by force of arms is the real ideology…” Do you realize you’ve actually managed to snipe at freedom? It’s ‘freedom’, not ‘democritization’ that is the ideology. Freedom is an ideology because it is an ideal; one that exists naturally in every human heart. Democracy is but a means to that or any other object and is not an ideology other than some fools worship it. Regardless, freedom is the only ideology of demonstrated merit so far concocted by the mind of man, as well as a gift of G-d and, therefore, the birthright of every single human being. Will you then deny those still in bondage their birthright even as you revel in yours? Once again, you have imputed things to us none have said, and misconstrued all we are about. I admit to encouraging the spread of freedom in the world, both from altruism and enlightened self-interest. But encouragement need not be ‘forced on others’. It can also be encouraged in less violent ways and at every opportunity. And, when opportunity presents itself (e.g., a war), there is nothing wrong in leaving those we defeat better off than we find them; especially when we figure the less tyranny there exists, the fewer enemies freedom will have to suffer. Remember, our freedom is a serious threat to every despot making their despotism less sustainable against an expectation of liberalization; so, they have a vested interest in suppressing even an awareness of the possibility of freedom.
When others cry out to us to rescue them from a despotic monster, it is only right and humane we answer as best we can. Would you advise decent citizens, then, against chasing off a mugger simply because it happens to be his ‘hood’ you have wandered into and have been warned against interfering? At what point is it wrong to intervene against obvious wrongdoing? Only when it is directed at you personally? I am sorry, but that is too shallow a philosophy for me and I am certain it’s not at all what the founders intended from us. They believed in freedom enough to take huge risks. Should we be more meek then they? How does that preserve freedom if we allow it to be nibbled away at the edges? Imagine, if you can, a world in which we are the lone remaining bastion of freedom, but with our energy and determination spent. Who then will prop us up as once we propped them up? How long do you suppose before the light goes out altogether? Is it not more rational, then, to expand freedom in the world to the degree possible so as to counteract this tendency to contract? Having real freedom elsewhere acts as a brake against domestic usurpation because it maintains the standard of what does and does not pass as freedom. If our own people forget, they need only look to those who have become, through no fault of their own, freer than us.
My experience has been pacifism and non-intervention are genuine enough in some, but many (if not most) who profess it do so more from cowardice. Over time it is reinforced and all but indistinguishable from the genuine article. The practitioner learns its pitfalls and how to avoid exposure, but, overall, it has become more a dodge and an ego prop for the self-defeated (you, as a psychiatrist, of all people should appreciate this). In that cowardice, bullies find their opportunity from which we all suffer. I will not pretend I have not also sometimes been cowed, but I long ago learned (through painful experience) it does no good yielding to fear or bullies. That just eggs them on.
DP: “…silly to consider Wilson a non-interventionist…” I didn’t say Wilson did not believe in non-interventionism, I said he did not act in accord with non-interventionism; and never per your conception of it. Wilson was a meddler of the first-order, whatever his belief. Therefore, either he was a complete hypocrite, a bumbler, or you put too much into your model of pre-modern non-intervention that does fit with earlier non-interventionism. Personally, I believe Wilson was an interventionist who could not resist the urge to meddle and was in denial of it. As to FDR, he ran as a non-interventionist only because it was necessary to his re-election. This we have by his own admission to his underlings. Behind the scenes he was preparing to enter the war against Germany and doing all in his power to interfere against Japan in China. You made the claim non-interventionism was a cardinal rule of our political philosophy. All I have done is show how riddled with holes is that perception. So, far you have only attempted to plug the one hole, and that rather poorly. Non-interventionism is a expressed belief in all countries in which the rulers are elected. It was just as strongly felt in Germany even as the Nazis took over, and none so insistent on the non-intervention of others as was Hitler. So, what? It is empty political rhetoric easily belied by the way these same people rush to war whenever provoked. It is an easily worn sentiment, just as easily discarded; so not deeply held. In 19th century American politics, it wasn’t even a principle other than as a declaration of who could meddle where.
DP: “…were not Jacobin crusades to bring democracy to the Indians or the Mexicans…” Wrong. Lewis and Clarke had as part of their commission to establish relations with the Northwest Indians as would pull them to us and out of the British-Canadian orbit. Didn’t I already mention the ‘filibusters’. The filibusters were private American interventionists who actively spread the ideals of our revolution throughout Mexico, Central and South America. Aaron Burr was one and Daniel Boone was another. Many were directly active in the revolutions that erupted in those countries soon after ours. So fierce was this sentiment that American presidents and politicians were forced to disavow it even as many of them encouraged it (Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, &c). The Texas independence movement was stirred up by them and once fighting broke out, many more filibusters flocked to Texas to be part of the fighting (e.g., Davy Crockett). That was the true origin of our credo of ‘non-intervention’, not the absolutely no intervention outside our borders nonsense you’ve concocted for it (even if that were possible).
To be totally non-interventionist, we’d have to seal our borders against all immigration and emigration, halt all commerce with neighbors, ground planes, blow up tracks, and prevent all transmission beyond our airspace. Is this really what you advocate?
DP: “As for my prose style, why do you care?” I care because sloppy thinking and sloppy writing go hand in glove. Writing for effect forces us to reorder our thinking and take greater care in what we say and convince other to believe. I am struggling here to clear away the deadwood. I can either tolerate the deadwood others pile on or I can try to get them working with me to clear away the mess (i.e., haven't dismissed you as not worth cultivating). Poor prose also leads to lots of misunderstandings as waste still more time. So, the more I can get others to defend their arguments employing the proper tools, the more the tools will do some of the work for me. It’s as simple as that.
Mr. Phillips asked "I’m not sure what the point was of bringing up Teddy Roosevelt. TR was a self-proclaimed progressive. His bellicosity was motivated by his nationalism"
The point I made goes back to your original premise interventionism is 'un-'conservative. It is you who make this argument, but have, as yet, given us nothing on which to hang that assertion other than a strained interpretation of the qualified utterances of several Presidents at a time when America was obliged to tread carefully in its foreign affairs. Even those, I had to supply you with and demonstrate how they are less than the absolute principle you make of them, raising them from simple declaration of policy to policy straightjacket. I have also given you numerous citations of early private American citizens engaged in activism, adventurism, and outright political meddling in the affairs of neighbors. I can easily multiply this list many times over, but don’t see that additional proofs our rhetoric ill-matches our inclinations will convince you given these haven’t already done the trick.
Specifically, Teddy was one president who made no bones of intervention (despite rather than because of the politics of his party). His presidency marks a sea-change in our national attitude from one of apologizing for every misadventure to one more in keeping with the superpower we’d become. Before Teddy, we deferred to European primacy; from Teddy to Ford, we didn’t. Therefore, I began with him as turning-point.
Yet, disqualifying Teddy as a conservative on the basis of his progressivism is also debatable, as he was, in some respects, as conservative as some who sport that label today. He is even cited by present day conservatives as a archtype for assertive leadership. Despite his clear progressivism, he was no socialist; and the most we can accuse him of is statism and agreement with more leftward progressive intellectuals of his class. Remember, the political environment of 1913 was nothing like today; and the ‘progressive’ label was regarded as far to the right of most social movements as ‘neo-con’ today is regarded to the right of progressive. Even socialism hadn’t acquired the stigma for which it is now infamous, and was generally regarded respectable enough for church socials. Progress was the great byword of the era, indispensible to salon conversations, and bandied by people we’d regard conservative based on things they’d support and those oppose. The temper of the country favored some liberality in all its candidates, and took little note of the few reactionaries opposed to progress. A great deal is made he opposed the more conservative Chester Arthur as if a stark contrast, yet even Arthur, the ‘arch-conservative’ had his ‘progressivisms’ (i.e., reforms, public works) and expressed support for ‘progress’ in a generalized way.
Progress back then did not mean the same careless of consequences experimentation it does today, though some experimentation was expected (most people still understood bad experiments should be reversed and you don’t throw out the good with the bad). It did mean public support of canal and railroad building, waterway dredging, libraries, education, protection against quackery, rule of law, temperance, benevolence societies, hospitals and care for the indigent sick, promoting science, technology, (private) charities, extending the franchise to women, prison reform, &c. Back then, ‘progressive’ had the sense of ‘try new things, but keep what works’, not the ‘tear it all down and start over’ socialism or the ‘change is good in and of itself’ obsession that characterizes progressivism today. All this puts Teddy more in the conservative camp than you may suppose. Even had he been more temperamentally conservative, there was no distinct ‘conservative movement’ which he might join, because there was not yet a public recognition that socialism and liberty are incompatible; nor any outcry for a preservation of republican principles most Americans believed unassailable (including Teddy).
From all I have read of Teddy, he very well might have rejected socialism so strongly as to make him a conservative reactionary had he witnessed the horrors of middle 20th century socialist lunacy. Teddy was intensely proud of his country, of its accomplishments, and of the spirit of independent individualism that set us apart. Had he realized where his own progressivism was taking us, he’d have surely denounced it or its more extreme elements.
Therefore, it is less a question Teddy is disqualified because of his progressivism then that he is a good measure of the temper of his day, including that of most we’d regard conservative, with respect to intervention. Teddy was an unapologetic interventionist and so was Arthur, when it suited them. I could have stuck to conservatives as that is your premise, but you also assumed non-intervention was part and parcel of the American political character generally. That obliges me to include guys like Teddy, Wilson, FDR, and John Quincy, Jefferson, Jackson, &c so as to debunk the whole of your assumption, not just its conservative part.
One I did not include was George Washington. Who could be both more mainstream and iconic of American political sensibility than Washington; and unassailable as to non-interventionism? It was Washington, after all, who gave us our first official remonstrance against foreign involvements underpinning your theory. Yet, it was also Washington who readily agreed to and enthusiastically promoted not one but two unprovoked assaults on Canada with the notion of encouraging Canadian separatism. Much earlier in his career he’d promoted a campaign to be led by him against the French. He’d also schemed among the Ohio Indians to discourage support of the French. As commander-in-chief, he employed Congress to lobby Europe and Russia as would favor our cause. All these give us a picture of a master schemer given to meddling well outside his proper domain. His farewell address is, today, considered nonpartisan; but that is not how Jefferson saw it, as the allusion to foreign alliances for which it is venerated effectively and publicly condemned Jefferson’s equally public advocacy of strengthening the post-war alliance with France (see http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/garrity.htm). He did feel entangling alliances should generally be avoided, but not least because Jefferson promoted them, and he suspected Jefferson (with his gift for rhetoric and fast rising popularity) of demagoguery. If true, as it almost certainly was, it recasts Washington’s remark as political manipulation to neutralize a potential threat to his creation (in his estimation); and, coincidentally, neutralizing his speech as a prop for your theory of non-interventionism. Taken together, we get a picture of Washington’s values that are clouded by considerations he felt more important to launching and securing the republic than to guiding its ultimate objects.