g m g D e s i g n . c o m

I read a recent postby strategic thinker Thomas Barnett that was both unusually long and quite pensive. It was a fascinating perspective, so I’ll leave it to you to read the post. Ultimately, he endorses Barak Obama, a position I do not share. But his thought process is worthy of consideration. He bemoans the bitter partisanism that pervades society during election season: people shocked and appalled by others’ choice of party affiliation or candidate. I agree. I know plenty of people who endorse one side or the other and I find I can learn from either perspective, even while maintaining my own opinion and my own choice.

In thinking about all this, I reflected on my own political affiliation over the years. I used to be apolitical, throughout most of my college years. I had a far-leftwing room mate for a semester in college who affected my political perceptions. I don’t think that experience was “bad” or “good.” I consider it a learning experience. While I found him quite radical, I have to admit that, for a time, it affected my opinions (I moved further to the “left” as it is defined today). His view points weren’t just politically liberal; they were extreme and often angry. He was one of those people who, after 9/11, seemed to blame America for provoking the attacks (a view point I find intellectually fraudulent, but typical of the Left).

After college, I explored my own political beliefs, reading books such as “What’s So Great About America” (Dinesh D’Souza, a political conservative) and “The Lexus and the Olive Tree” (by Thomas Friedman, moderate liberal). My political view points were beginning to evolve from simplistic “political view point” to “worldview.” The difference is significant.

My “worldview” took a major evolutionary step when I read “The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century,” by Thomas Barnett (his blog site is referenced above). I first saw his famous PowerPoint brief on BookTV, then read his book. He cut across party lines in a way that made party lines look silly and obsolete. His view points were strategic, not ideological, and his work continues to be strategic in nature, a mindset that, I’ve noticed, seems to be rare among talking heads, journalists, and many politicians. Few public thinkers seem to have Barnett’s ability to think broadly and strategically, making their work less interesting and less intelligent. In a single book, Barnett relegated hundreds of other authors to the intellectual recycle bin.

In an effort to not be too verbose, I’ve become a “neo-conservative libertarian.” I’ll give some history, and then define that term. There was a time when I called myself a “liberal conservative.” I did so only half seriously: how can a “liberal conservative” be stereotyped as a partisan? But I realized that I needed a title that was not just a punch line. The term neo-conservative libertarian is surely a loaded term to some, and far from perfect. But it’s the closest term that embodies my political/economic/social worldview, so I’m sticking with it until a better alternative arises. Further, my chosen self-label provokes interest and discussion rather than shock and assumption as to where my opinion resides.

The neo-conservativeportion of the label refers to my political view. I.e., I’m a conservative who believes that it’s OK for the US government (and other Govs) to use their power for good. Since “good” is a disputed term, I’ll say that “good” in this context is that which makes life harder for the bad guys (Saddam, Osama, Kim Jong-Il, et al). Unlike some of today’s neo-cons, I have no problem with the ICC, a useful construct for dealing with bad international actors who misbehave. I also don’t have a problem with military force, though we as a country must do better than we’ve done in following up military force with effective re-construction. Case in point: the war in Iraq was fought and won in a month. The post-war re-building (not to be confused with the “war”) proceeds to this today; insufficient/slow re-building led to looting, chaos, and eventually, insurgency. We traded a totalitarian regime with a bad leader for chaos (though that situation is now improving, post-surge). We need to do better than that.

I added the libertarian qualifier to my self-label despite some disagreement that I have with mainstream libertarianism. Still, libertarians understand the power of the free market and the power of individual freedom (and the deep connection b/w the two). They understand that laws meant to “help” us are often counter-productive and sometimes downright harmful. Milton Friedman provides what is perhaps the most cogent force multiplier in favor of libertarianism (ironically, Friedman considered himself a liberal, before the definition of liberal changed to shed suspicon on economic freedom, a tradition that continues to this day). Hence, I consider myself a Milton Friedman capitalist. Free markets don’t exist in a vacuum. They exist in a broader context, as does the absence of economic freedom. Historically, a nation-state that denies economic freedom (broadly) also denies civil freedom, religious freedom, etc. If you don’t control your money, your capacity to control everything else begins to fade. How can you support political causes, religious causes, and other convictions if the central government denies your economic freedom? Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom” makes this case more cogently and comprehensively than I can, so I suggest you read it if you haven’t already.

In summary, I support individual freedom and freedom in the market place. Parting from many libertarians, I also support the role of the US government as the historic (in the 20th century) arbiter and guardian of international peace, a role the US took up after WWII and continued through the cold war, and continuing again through the global war on terrorism (somewhat less effectively). We continue to be the vanguard of globalization, supporting it economically (though anti-trade populism isn’t encouraging) and directly through out military efforts abroad.

In essence, my foreign policy vision is inherently pro-globalization. Bad international actors (leaders of nation-states or transnational terrorist groups) don’t operate effectively (indefinitely) in areas of the globe that are globalized or in the process of globalizing, but thrive in areas that are disconnected from the global system of trade (of goods and service, but also of ideas, including those that are contrary to oppression and hate). It is the force of globalization that will ultimately bring sustained global peace, and it is that vision that I support.