My old friend Elbridge Colby, one of the smartest, most thoughtful guys I know, has written a thought-provoking response to Danielle Pletka and Tom Donnelly’s recent op-ed in the Washington Post. Pletka and Donnelly make the case against conservative budget balancers who want the U.S. to pare back its national security commitments as part of a broader fiscal consolidation:
Some simply wish to spend less; if that means under-resourcing the war in Afghanistan, so be it. To them, the Defense Department is another case of wasteful government and bureaucratic collusion that has, in Coburn’s words, “allowed the military-industrial complex to make things unaffordable.” For others, doctrinaire fiscal conservatism blends easily with a renewed isolationism. As one GOP up-and-comer told us recently, “America has borne the burden of making the world secure for 60 years; it’s someone else’s turn.”
In contrast, Pletka and Donnelly argue for robust internationalism:
The road forward embraces small government and a renewal of private enterprise but sees an equally exceptional American enterprise abroad. This has been the mainstream position of conservatives and Republicans since 1945, expressed in Sen. Arthur Vandenberg’s rejection of “isolationism” and embrace of “internationalism.”
But is there really such a clear contrast? I don’t get the impression that Senator Coburn is an “isolationist.” Rather, I think he is aware of the way that the defense procurement policy has spiraled out of control. And while the right has rhetorically embraced small government, the vigorous expansion of public spending under both Democratic and Republican administrations suggests that at least some in the new generation of conservatives are right to argue that a new approach is necessary, one that is more in tune with core conservative insights. That is the case Bridge makes in his response:
Of course there is no single “conservative” foreign and defense policy. But there are certain fundamentals of a conservative approach, fundamentals consistent with a conservative approach to domestic policy or the law or social life. Condensed, the conservative approach is animated by a deep sensibility for and humility in the face of the limits of what can be achieved by government and other organs of social rationality; by the central importance — but difficulty — of preserving and advancing liberty, order, prosperity, and good values in a complex and imperfect world; by an awareness of the often unpredictable dangers of excessive ambition; and by a profound sense that government is the servant of the people’s interests, and thus should never risk its citizens’ lives or resources lightly.
The Pletka and Donnelly article does not stem from these principles. Instead, their expansive policy approach emphasizing the paramount importance of promoting freedom abroad and the need to make an enormous expenditure of resources and lives in service of that goal very much resembles the aggressive liberal internationalism that President Kennedy eloquently summoned in his 1961 Inaugural Address, when he said that the United States would “pay any price, bear any burden, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to ensure the survival and the success of liberty.” Conversely, whereas Pletka and Donnelly see the United States’ interests as almost boundless, a conservative approach would see not all interests as vital and would be willing to make the tough choices to distinguish the vital interests of the United States from the peripheral; whereas they dismiss the deleterious impact of the fiscal burdens of wars and large defense expenditures, a conservative approach would view these huge outlays with great concern; whereas they laud the ready willingness to spend American blood for international leadership, a conservative approach would emphasize that no government should risk the lives of its citizens save in cases of necessity.
I recommend reading the whole thing.
I’m very torn on these issues. I’m far more inclined to support a policy of forward engagement than Bridge, yet I’m frustrated by the failure of many foreign policy thinkers on the right to reckon with the urgent need for fiscal consolidation. While it is certainly true that entitlement reform should be our first priority, the increase in military expenditures is being driven in no small part by rising compensation costs for current military personnel and retirees. Josh Barro addressed this subject in a recent column for RealClearMarkets. One of my central preoccupations at The Agenda is figuring out how to do more with less in the health and education sectors through the use of business model innovation. I don’t get the sense that the military is as cost-effective as it can be. And that’s a problem that conservatives ought to take seriously.