I’ve recently been drafting a paper explaining the difference between Isolationism and Non-Interventionism, and have hit a bit of a wall.
I can quite easily distinguish Isolationism as a combination of non-interventionism AND protectionism. But what would we call the other combinations?
Is anyone aware of a proper name for a philosophy that combines free-trade and non-intervention? I know it could be argued that libertarianism in fact does, but the CATO crowd as of late seems to be endorsing a combination of free-trade and intervention, so it feels that this does not work. What term would one use to describe this foreign policy? And what would then one call CATO’s intervention and free trade, or a philosophy of protectionism at home and interventionism abroad?
If anyone has any thoughts on this they would be much appreciated. And if their is no proper term for at least one of these, any ideas as to what they should be called?
I think the biggest problem you’re going to have is that non-interventionism was an actual philosophy, whereas “isolationism” was just a polemical expression cooked up by the war party. I’m not sure isolationism has ever had a fixed real meaning.
The combination of free trade and non-interventionism used to be called liberalism and technically that’s still correct.
I agree, and believe I share the sentiment of many here in wishing that we could reclaim liberalism. Perhaps the move of the mainstream democrats toward labeling themselves “progressives,” a more honest term, would allow that opportunity.
But it feels like some new or old term without years of demonization for that simple view is necessary.
not sure if there’s even been a state was protectionist and non-interventionist, as most states that are despotic enough to enforce legal plunder also tend to have imperial aspirations.
a state that has a 100% free market economy is likely to be a 100% free society, and thus not burdened by warmongering special interests that push the nation into interventionist policies.
What’s the name for the political system known in french as “ancien regime” ? When libertarians were called liberals they opposed royal authority and mercantilism.
What’s the name for that old system libertarians fought against ?
I ask because in spanish there’s a word for it and is ‘conservadores’ - But that word translates into English as ‘conservatives’ wich has a rather opposite meaning.
I think the reappropriation of “liberal” will tend to generate questions as to why the socialists adopted the name in the first place. The answer is of course that they wanted to glom onto a legacy of achievement that is not theirs.
To abandon the name “liberal” is to abandon our historical legacy. We have no reason to do that and every reason not to.
Just tell people you are a liberal from the non-communist right.
I don’t necessarily agree that this would be altogether communism. I would say that today in the US we have a protectionist economy in many respects (tariffs, licensing, high taxation, etc) and none could argue that we are interventionist, but I could not see us as communist. I don’t feel that protectionism is quite pure state property. Of course, the way it works in the US, we tend to act like everything IS state property that is only licensed to us for use so long as we pay a usage fee (taxes).
I only mean protectionism as meaning opposing trade with other nations. I am not even touching upon levels of economic intervention.
Could we say that Nazi Germany was in this catagory? I doubt they traded much with anyone else during the war, and they were definitely interventionist…
JoeCochran: Perhaps the move of the mainstream democrats toward labeling themselves “progressives,” a more honest term, would allow that opportunity.
I had a similar thought. Could we have our word back now that you have finished with it? … Damn, it’s a bit battered! What have you been doing with it?
But I don’t agree that “progressive” is a more honest term, any more than Liberal was. Not for a group of people whose policy is “Let’s try socialism again!”.
Joe, isn’t the US arguably interventionist with all its regulation and taxation? It’s not socialism or communism, but there are definitely elements of those systems in the US.
As for democrats, neither ‘liberal’ nor ‘progressive’ suits them as terms. I am sure they’ll find something to reflect their true nature.
The ancien régime (literally meaning pre-revolutionary) was a tense power structure roughly balancing out monarchical and aristocratic power, whose purpose was to maintain traditional aristocratic privilege through the state. It was most definitely not absolute monarchy, since the monarch could not even raise taxes or undergo any significant reform without calling up the assembly of the three estates. (It was in the face of state bankruptcy that Louis XVI convened the assembly that deposed him.)
The ancien régime is characterized by seemingly nonsensical institutions as the purchase of military commissions, which make no sense from our contemporary point of view but are perfectly sensible when viewed through aristocratic interests. The monopoly over military commissions kept the king from using the national army against them.
Any system where a privileged elite controls the state for its own benefit, which is quite characteristic of latin american countries such as Mexico (a hundred families own the entire economy), can be qualified as being ancien régime.
Since there was no equivalent experience in the english-speaking world, (the parliament controlled the British state to such an extent that revolution was avoided), there is no word in english for ancien régime. The closest thing may be toryism.
Ah, that’s true. Now I remeber that (at least according to H. Spencer) the Tories were the war party while the Whigs supported free-enterprise and a contractual organization of society.
So, what word would you use to describe the elites that nowadays run Western society ? Though things are not as a bad as in Mexico, still the Anglo-Saxon countries are run by an oligarchy, right ? And such oligarchies are opposed to change because that would mean the end of their privileges. And, since they are opposed to change, they can be described as ‘conservative’ - This is also true with respect to the eco-socialist who want to ‘conserve’ the ‘enviroment’.
Is there a word that conveys both the anti-libertarian position and conservative position (in the sense I’ve described) ?
I would describe them as “the political class,” the people who live through political careers. It has nothing to do with conservatism since they all want to radically increase the political side of society.
And I see that Roderick Long is translating the french word “conservateurs” as “conservatives”. In Molinari’s works the “conservateurs” are the old political class (and they are royalists). And yet, in contemporary American(?) English, the meaning of the word ‘conservative’ sounds (is?) a bit confused, just like the word ‘liberal’.
Theres no concrete term, which is a source of much trouble.
Conservative meaning liberal is a 20th century phenomenon as a result of opposition to New Deal fascism. All those that resisted the New Deal were labeled reactionary and “conservative” for wanting to preserve the status quo of liberalism.
Interestingly, monarchy was percieved as being “liberal” by 20th century fascists.
That’s kind of the problem with all those labels. They are pressing more on emotion then they do actually define anything. Basically this leads to logical fallacies. The Anti-()isms are the most misleading ones. i.e. Someone claims to be an Anti-Communist. Let’s say you oppose him on some issues. Immediately they cook up that you must be kind of a pro-Communist etc.
There are several reasons why one would oppose interventions in other countries. One should also ask, why are people in favor of interventions. I’m not talking about reasons stated, but the real reasons.
I find this to be a very interesting discussion, as the ambiguity of labels has bothered me since I discovered the various shades of meaning. I so earnestly wish the words could be defined. I see it as a dangerous destruction of language, as discussed in The New American article, Losing our Language by Dennis Behreandt. “…to put it more plainly, in a ‘more straightforward and right’ manner, those who use language (words and deeds) to communicate in an incoherent fashion, to lie or deceive or to obfuscate, attack and undermine the basic foundations of human civilization.” The article is available here: http://thenewamerican.com/node/4077
Good points. I also observed that especially English is deteriorating. This may have to do with intellectuals being “postmodern” and “deconstructionist”, but furthermore not much value is placed on virtues like honesty, reliability, accuracy and that kind.