Question

Could someone please give a short explanation of the differences between conservatives and liberals when it comes to foreign policy? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! :)

Answer 1

That's a little tricky, not only because each side will describe the other in very different terms, but also because neither is monolithic. You can see at least one division in each. For example, the liberal is currently divided at least into the Obama and Clinton camps. and the conservative is divided at least into the Bush and Tea Party camps. All four groups have different perspectives on foreign policy: for example, the Clinton and Bush camps are more interventionist and internationalist, the Obama and Tea Party camps are more isolationist, the Clinton and Obama camps both prefer high-tech wizardry and robot bombings, while the Bush and Tea Party camps prefer traditional boots on the ground military options. And so on.

WIth that in mind...I would say the single largest difference is that the modern liberal sees foreign policy as just an extension of domestic policy. There isn't, or shouldn't, be any serious difference between how the US government treats US citizens living in the US, and citizens of some other country living somewhere else. That cuts both ways: it means the US treats foreign countries and foreign nationals with the same respect for individual rights as would be the case for US citizens -- no military prisons, full civil rights -- but it also means the US has the same right, or duty, to intervene in their lives. If Libyans or Syrians are dying at the hands of a rogue government, it is the moral duty of the US Federal government to intervene just as if it was the government of South Carolina.

On the other hand, conservatives tend to draw a sharp distinction at the national border: citizens of other countries are NOT Americans, they have NOT consented to our laws and customs, they cannot vote here, and both the powers over and the duties toward them of the US government are therefore sharply limited. It's fine to, for example, to try suspected Pakistani terrorists by military tribunal, because they're NOT American citizens. On the other hand, the US has a much more limited right or obligation to intervene on one side or the other if the Pakistanis decide to have a civil war and slaughter each other.

To some extent this is a reflection of the respective focusses of the ideologies: a liberal concerns himself mostly with what he would call "positive human rights" -- a right to health, happiness, the helpful concern of your neighbors. He says "Am I not my brother's keeper?" He looks for how he ought to help his fellow man, whether he be American or Pakistani, black or red or purple. He excuses his mistakes, when he makes things worse instead of better, by pointing to his good intentions and the fact that he is never inactive in the face of evil (which the conservative routinely is).

The conservative concerns himself mostly with what he calls "rights" and the liberal calls "negative rights" -- the right to be left alone, to make your own decisions, to not have people interfere with your life without your consent. He says "Who am I to judge another, or make decisions for him, when I have not walked in his shoes?" He looks to avoid causing harm by ignorant and arrogant meddling, or telling other people what to do. He excuses his mistakes, when he stands idly by and allows evil to prosper, by pointing out at least he did not actively contribute to evil (which the liberal routinely does).

Answer 2

Thank you so much!!! As usual you cleared it up for me. I appreciate you! :)