Conservatism Doesn’t Mean Isolationism : The pursuit of liberty should top the conservative agenda.

Since the birth of the nation, one single word has taken precedence above all others: liberty.

The objective of the American Revolution, sustained all the way through the 19th Century, was liberty for ourselves alone. But during the 20th Century, our objective expanded because the role of the oceans diminished. Our objective became liberty beyond our own shores and as a result, the 20th Century is recognized throughout the world by friend and foe alike as the Century of America. Without us, it would have been known as the Century of Nazism or the Century of Communism, whichever of the two powers would have won the final battle, not that it would have made much difference, since either way it would have been the Century of Slavery.

If we should go back to drawing the defensive line only at our own shores, then what will the 21st Century be called? Will it be known as the Century of the People’s Republic of China? Or the Century of the Islamic Fundamentalist Revolution? Or the Century of Russian Hegemony?

After the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, the needle of the foreign-policy compass of conservatives became erratic. Sadly, in my view, some who were valiant hawks, who fought so hard and long to be done with one totalitarian force--the Soviet empire--went through a metamorphosis and shed the power of hawks in exchange for the wings of doves. Today, they decry the use of current or future U.S. military intervention unless our own shores are endangered. I’m talking about good people, some of the best of our times. But after the Soviet Union was dismantled, they began to speak of things inconsistent with the foundation of conservatism, inconsistent with liberty.

Whatever foreign intrigue of the 1990s came into being, no matter the adventurism or designs of a foreign leader, the simple response became a one-sentence policy statement borrowed from older doves: “It’s not in our national interest.” The term is left undefined, or explanations are given that are so oblique that “the national interest” means whatever the person wants it to mean.

Bosnia?

“No,” I heard. “It’s not in our national interest.” And so genocide became unworthy of more than an American yawn.

Haiti?

I heard laughter on that one: “Not Haiti. That’s not in our national interest,” even though Haiti is a Western Hemisphere neighbor.

By this new thought process, it would be possible to prove that Canada is not in our national interest and Burkina Faso is.

I have believed throughout my adult life that conservatives are dedicated to the opposition of all totalitarianisms: communism, Nazism, fascism, Khomeinism, Kadafism, Saddamism or any other force that opposes liberty.

The term “conservative” must never, never, never be a synonym for one who believes in isolationism.

To hold on to the foreign-policy ideals we so painfully won, we must recognize that the achieved defeat of the Soviet threat is not one and the same as the guarantee of liberty.

I no longer want to hear the echo of the 1972 phrase, “Come Home, America,” the slogan that was written for the McGovern presidential campaign and is now being said again, this time by unexpected voices.

Conservatives, in my view, should still embrace those around the world who thirst for liberty, and should still oppose those who want it captured.

If we as a nation have both the means and the will to bring about that objective, in short time not one weapon will need to be fired, not one American will be sacrificed anywhere, because the power-seekers of the world will know that they cannot win against the liberty-seekers of the United States.

And those who will spend most of their lives in the 21st Century will see the richest goal of mankind achieved: liberty.

Conservatives should lead that quest because no one else will. Lead it by making that objective our foreign policy and our defense agenda, and have it be world-known that liberty is always in the national interest of the United States of America.