MR: In his book, The Machinery of
Freedom, David Friedman suggests that
the concept of a libertarian foreign policy is problematic. "Under an interventionist policy," he writes, "we defend ourselves, when it seems necessary, by helping the governments we
ally with to oppress their citizens. Under a non-interventionist policy, we defend ourselves, when it seems necessary, by killing innocent citizens of the governments we are fighting against." In your opinion, does a libertarian foreign policy exist?
BANDOW: Yes. To say that it exists doesn't mean that it's easy. He certainly raises some important philosophical points, but I think you can apply libertarian principles to foreign policy, and it suggests that a non-interventionist policy is best. It cert
ainly suggests care and caution in having the US government act because of the harms that it can cause. But I do think that a free people have a right to defend themselves, and in this world, at least, it's hard to come up with a system other than through
governmental action.
MR: Did the foreign policy of the United States help win the Cold War, or did the fundamental flaws of communism destroy the Soviet Union?
BANDOW: I think that there clearly was a national interest in responding to the Soviet Union because it was a threatening state. On the other hand, I think that the fundamental flaws inherent to communism were probably the most important factors in bringi
ng down the Soviet regime.
MR: In the aftermath of the Cold War, what type of foreign policy should the United States now adopt?
BANDOW: I think clearly the US should move back to a foreign policy adapted to that of a republic, rather than an empire. We certainly don't need an expansive military policy; we don't have to keep one and a half million soldiers at their arms. We don't h
ave to have the kind of military commitments that we do today. So I think the only justification for a large military was the threat of Soviet communism. That threat being gone, clearly we should be adjusting our foreign and military policies in response.
MR: During the Cold War, those on the right, simply speaking, tended to favor interventionism while those on the left favored isolationism. To some extent, the opposite is now true today. What, in your opinion, accounts for this change?
BANDOW: I think that you see some very real debates on both right and left. You have within the conservative movement some people who have seemed to have grown to like interventionism and they still want to do so. If you want to get back to principles of
smaller government, you have to deal with foreign policy. I think, on the other hand, the left has a foreign policy view of selflessness. That is, they don't like interventionism to protect American interests, which is why they didn't like it during the C
old War. But they like the idea of running around the world making the world to be safe for democracy. In a sense, I think the left now wants to intervene whenever it's not in America's interest. And I think that grows naturally out of their philosophy.
MR: Many foreign policy experts believe that the future of Russia is the most important international issue that America currently faces. What should the US do concerning Russia, if anything?
BANDOW: I think that we should certainly, in some general sense, promote and hope for the success of democracy and capitalism. I think that means having a free trade policy with them - it makes no sense not to buy their products. I think it also means red
ucing military threats - it makes no sense to expand NATO up to Russia's borders and encourage the Russians to maintain a military by feeling threatened by our continuing US alliance against Russia. On the other hand, we shouldn't be giving them aid becau
se I think foreign aid simply doesn't work. At best, we're going to be funding all the wrong people over there and I think the evidence says foreign aid tends to retard rather than promote reform. And in the main, we shouldn't intervene in their own polit
ical struggles. The Russians really don't care what we think of various presidential contenders over there, and their own election problems. So we shouldn't be mouthing off all the time when they don't care.
MR: What role should international organizations, such as the United Nations or NATO, play in American foreign policy?
BANDOW: I think the absolute minimum. NATO had a role in the midst of the Cold War. It has no role today; there simply is no enemy for NATO to be allied against. An organization like the United Nations might have some minimal value as a place for countrie
s to let off steam. It certainly should not be treated seriously and the US certainly should not commit serious resources to it nor put US forces under the control of such organizations.
MR: Does a reliance upon the United Nations endanger American sovereignty or liberty in general?
BANDOW: I think that if one treats the United Nations seriously and puts US forces under UN command that there is a danger for US sovereignty. As long as the UN has no enforcement mechanism I think there is no serious threat to American sovereignty. The o
nly threat comes from a willingness of administrations to treat the UN as if it was a serious organization. Then it can cause serious problems - potentially entangling us into conflicts where we should have nothing to do, Somalia and others like that.
MR: Should the US invest money in defensive weapons systems, such as the Strategic Defense Initiative?
BANDOW: I think it makes a lot of sense to try to have a truly defensive system. And I think SDI makes sense to invest money in, recognizing that it's never going to be perfect and it may not be feasible. But, quite honestly, there at least is a genuine d
efense system, in contrast to most of our spending, which is to defend other countries.
MR: Turning to domestic issues, libertarians seem to have given the Republicans' "Contract With America" mixed reviews. Some claim it is a sincere attempt to reduce the size of government, while others insist that it is proof that the GOP is not committed
to protecting liberty. What is your view?
BANDOW: I think that libertarians should have no allusions: Republicans are politicians. And many of them are politicians who believe in government. There are 73 Republican freshmen in the House; there are 157 non-freshmen. Many of those non-freshmen are
fairly big spenders who've been around for a long time and tend to like government. I think that libertarians should work with Republicans where they can and criticize them where they need to. There are some things in the "Contract With America," things l
ike term limits, which I think are very good. I think there are important issues like legal reform and others which are worth doing, regulatory reforms, and we should use those, property rights protection. Some of those are very, very important. We just h
ave to recognize that there are limitations there. These are not, in fact, libertarians; they are Republican politicians. And we need to work with them where we can and oppose them where we have to.
MR: You have written a number of columns about the threat that governmental regulation and bureaucracy pose for the economy. Is there an appropriate amount of regulation, or do you believe that government should adopt a laissez faire economic approach?
BANDOW: I think definitely that government should keep its hands much more off the economy. There are places where you need government to be involved - for example, to try to help create property rights. I think in the area of environment, for example. Th
e problem with environmental pollution is the lack of property rights. There aren't property rights that can be defended, then you're going to get pollution. They say the "great common pool" is water and air. And I think there are areas where you can have
market friendly regulations. You can use market mechanisms to try to reduce pollution in a way that's just not so destructive economically as it is today. We're never going to get away with no regulations - I don't think that's realistic. On the other ha
nd, it should be strictly limited; it should be much more reliant on market forces. It needs to be much more constrained. Right now, basically, government can destroy whole industries if it wants to. That sort of situation is just utterly unacceptable.
MR: In a recent column, you advocated a return to constitutional government. Given the statism that characterizes modern politics, is it probable that future legislation will reflect your view?
BANDOW: I've been at this for 15 years in various versions of professional life, from being in an administration to being a writer, and I have no allusions how likely it is that my advise will be taken any time soon. What I try to do is hold an ideal, and
I think we should move towards that. A lot depends upon whether or not this Republican wave in the House is the first of ongoing revolution, in which case there's a chance that we'll move toward some very serious cuts in government or whether this is mer
ely a passing fancy, a temporary phenomenon. I don't know what to predict today. Again, I think it's important to have somebody out there pointing the way and trying to move people towards that, recognizing that it's going to take a while for the politica
l process to follow along.
MR: Do you believe that the Republican victory was a victory for smaller government, or were the voters simply expressing they're dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party?
BANDOW: There are obviously a lot of things that go into any election. But I think there was a real sense of resentment at some of the worse abuses of government: regulatory policy, quotas, big government, high taxes. I think those were very important. An
d the way they took out they're frustration was on Democrats. Let's recognize that a lot of those voters, even though they're voting dissatisfaction with government, may not be quite ready to give up their own subsidy programs. But at least there was a st
rong reaction, I think, in the direction saying, "We need less government - get rid of the meddlers, get rid of the regulators." And that was very healthy.
MR: Many libertarian philosophers claim that classical liberalism, being in large measure a derivative of reason, is in conflict with theism and religious faith. What is your response to this?
BANDOW: I think that one has to recognize that religion, at least in my view, certainly Christianity, is a world view for the whole person, while libertarianism is a political philosophy. There's no reason to believe those are, in fact, in conflict. To my
mind, one can hold a very libertarian political philosophy and still be a Christian or have another religious faith. Even though the Enlightenment and classical liberalism are closely related, there is nothing, I think, inherent in conflict between a rel
igious faith and libertarianism. Indeed, I would argue the strongest basis for libertarianism is a Jewish or Christian belief in the transcendence and sacredness of man, and in fact if there is a transcendent and eternal soul, that gives a very strong bas
is for protecting individuals in saying that those rights cannot be violated by the government. It's the strongest basis, I would argue, for that kind of a political belief. So I think they really are consistent.
MR: You have served in a wide array of different jobs, including an advisor in the Reagan administration, a magazine editor, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and a syndicated columnist. How has your career developed?
BANDOW: It all depends on propinquity - that is, location. While I was at Stanford Law School, I wrote for the Stanford Daily and I found out years later that Martin Anderson, who was at the Hoover Institution, read what I wrote for the Stanford Daily. He
was putting together the Reagan presidential campaign, and he asked me if I wanted to work for the campaign. I did that right out of law school; that sent me to Washington, and then I went from the administration to inquiries, because I had met Ed Crane
and some of the Cato people, and off it went from there. So, there's a good measure of luck, connections, providence - however one wants to put it. You write for a student newspaper; you never know where that might lead. That's the lesson in terms of my c
areer. If I had not written for the Stanford Daily, I have no idea where I would have ended up or what I would have been doing.