Reclaiming Hayek

Jesse Lerner has a fantastic piece in Dissent appraising the work of Friedrich Hayek from an explicitly left wing prospective. In Lerner’s opinion, Hayek got one thing absolutely right: that planned economies are horrible, horrible ideas. He thus spends a lot of time on Hayek’s most famous work - The Road to Serfdom - but not so much on his ideas about pricing in markets and the importance of dispersing knowledge.

What’s interesting about these two ideas, which are by far Hayek’s most influential intellectual contributions, is how obvious and almost redundant they seem today. The Road to Serfdom is either horribly overblown or very narrowly descriptive. His description of what inevitably happens when a state controls and plans the entirety of the economy is early prescient and perceptive, but is only applicable to situations in which the state control the entirety of the economy. Road became horribly bastardized when conservatives and libertarians would point to every instance of European social democracy or the existence of some state-owned industries and then wave around Road and say that tyranny was just around the corner(arguably, Hayek is partially to blame for this unfortunate tendency). But when we see that European social democracies are some of the most substantively and formally free nations on the face of the earth, we must grapple with the fact that either Road was wrong, or it was right about a system that has little relevance today. That’s not to say that Road wasn’t an important contribution in 1944, when many British socialists were promoting an incredibly technocratic, “enlightened totalitarian” model, but it’s hard to discern its relevance today when the most “socialist” states (Scandinavian social democracies) have the freest economies.

Hayek’s second great idea, his price theory, has a similar historical pedigree. His theory, that prices can only be determined efficiently by decentralized, dispersed markets, as opposed to central planners, came out of the Socialist Calculation Debate. Basically, in the 30s and 40s, lots of socialist economists argued that a planner and technocrats who were operating a centrally planned economy could set prices for goods that would efficient for their pseudo-market to function. Hayek pointed out that the equations and calculations necessary to determine prices from a centrally-planed perspective were just too complex for any planners, and thus the knowledge inputs that determine prices should be distributed widely and communicated through a relatively free market. Hayek, of course, was totally correct. But like his claims about an entirely planned state leading to totalitarianism, his arguments about pricing have largely been assimilated into mainstream thought and economics, and no one really disagrees with him anymore.

Hayek was a very influential and prescient thinker, and on the big questions of his day, he was indisputably correct. But when it comes to the messy part of actualizing Hayek’s thought into politics, too many have used his work to justify a doctrinaire libertarianism that is neither wholly supported by his thought or particularly commendable.

Libertarians Without The Party

Bruce Bartlett points out that despite the Libertarian tendency that has flared up within the conservative movement, the Libertarian Party itself is unlikely to do anything influential:

Although this may turn out to be a banner year for the Libertarian Party, the LP is not a real alternative to the Republicans and Democrats. Because of the Electoral College, restrictions on ballot access and onerous campaign finance laws, third parties simply aren’t viable for actually electing candidates. Nor do they pull the major parties toward their position: Ron Paul’s success did not encourage other Republican presidential candidates to even pay lip service to his ideas.

I believe that libertarian ideas would be better promoted by an interest group such as the National Rifle Association than through the Libertarian Party. Such a group could use the limited resources available for libertarian ideas far more effectively by establishing a political action committee, lobbying and advertising than by a political party running futile campaigns for public office. Nevertheless, the Libertarian Party may be an interesting force this year.

One of the odd results of our two party systems is that a basic idea - libertarianism - can gain so much traction despite having essentially zero politicians who favor the entire ideology. If you believe Brink Lindsey, as I do, America since the late 1960s has become vastly more free both economically and culturally. And yet, actual libertarians have been essentially shut out of our politics. And although I doubt Lindsey’s idea would ever get off the ground - actual ideological libertarians are much too fractious to really organize anything politically - there’s a deep libertarian tendency within much of the media elite that’s incredible influential.

A vast number of powerful media folks espouse a kind of soft, upper crust libertarianism. I’m thinking here of Thomas Friedman, Jonathan Rauch, the Economist editorial staff, Lindsey and Matt Welch to name a few. When I say soft libertarianism, I mean that they are generally social liberals who are also big fans of markets, but not to the point of being Rothbardian fundamentalists. Of course Friedman goes off the reservation with his support for massive investment in green energy, but it’s still impossible to deny that among much of the elite - especially the media elite - this type of soft libertarianism is quite popular. There is, of course, a disconnect between these soft-libs and the movement types who, because of their ideological passion, have largely been able to define the Libertarian movement. But it’s the soft-libs, or market liberals, or classical liberals or whatever you want to call them, that have the most influence and mainstream respect.

Libertarian Nihilism

I don’t know how else to describe Bryan Caplan’s declaration that “politicians almost never make me angry. I expect them to be atrocious, and I’m rarely disappointed.”  I understand, and am sometimes quite sympathetic, to the Caplanite critique of politics, but that doesn’t let you opt out from trying to oppose, or at least condemn, politicians who are especially malicious.  I mean, aren’t economists supposed to care about differences on the margin?

Exposure To All Sides

I share Tim Lee’s befuddlement that so many found it odd that the Cato Institue, with the noticeable exception of Director of Legal Affairs Roger Pilon, has been very far head of the curve on civil liberties and executive powers issues. While I agree with most lefties that the primary purpose of Cato - and certainly why they get most of their money - is to provide a business friendly approach to legal and regulatory issues, they’re still libertarians. They’re some of the best people to go when you need to know why the war on drugs is shitty, or why over militarized local policing is bad, why Raich v Gonzalez was an awful decision or even why the military budget is much too large. Cato, despite mostly garnerning attention and influence when promoting a right-wing, pro-business, anti-regulatory agenda, really is a mainstream libertarian organization.  And with the rise of John McCain and his militaristic/anti-liberal ethos, expect Cato to get even farther from spouting anything resembling the GOP party line.

I Agree, I Agree!

I know Will Wilkinson is a “libertarian” and I’m a “liberal” and thus I’m supposed to think that he hates poor people and wants to take their malnourished bodies and convert the carbon in their bodies to diamonds to encrust his Cadillac which runs on the blood of factory workers who he ruthlessly beats while they make toys out of pure lead and so on…but I have to agree with just about everything he says in this post.  Here’s the best bit:

As I’ve argued before, I think this conception of cosmopolitan liberalism almost got lost in the Cold War, during which cosmopolitan, internationalist ideals were largely ceded to the communists while liberalism rode out the red tide by tying itself defensively to nationalist feelings in those nations with a more or less liberal identity. The Cold War has been over for almost twenty years now. It is time to get back to the project of securing world peace through extending the scope of mutual cooperation. It is time to get back to the cosmopolitan ideals of liberal humanism…

So a guest-worker program would have a real short-term benefit to the U.S. in terms of increased border security, return migration, and labor market efficiency. The medium-term benefit of a large guest worker program aimed at our neighbors to the south is this: Once the program is established and has demonstrated its efficacy, it will be possible to make a persuasive case for further North American labor-market integration, pushing toward a common North American labor market. In the long term, large regional labor markets, such as the EU and a North American market (and a South African market, an African market, an Asian market, etc.) can begin to integrate, moving us toward the ultimate liberal aim of an open world of mutual cooperation.

It’s unclear if Wilkinson and Kerry Howley are the King and Queen of the new Cosmopolitan Libertarianism, but its refreshing to see self-styled libertarians who don’t think that freedom stops at the Southern border.  It’s ironic that as much of the “mainstream” libertarian movement represented by Cato and Reason have become strong advocates for international labor mobility, the nativist/asshole/Old Right libertarians represented by Paul, Rockwell and their ilk are having their moment in the sun.

PS - While we’re bashing nationalism, let me just say that I hate the Patriots.

Pro-Poor Libertarians and Occupational Licensing

One of the main problems with the libertarian movement gaining a bigger following is its seeming refusal to proactively address issues of entrenched poverty. While massive welfare spending clearly isn’t a panacea, it’s generally accepted that some level of government involvement is necessary to deal with poverty. Libertarians, if they want more support from outside the economically comfortable, should push forward with two issues. The War on Drugs/prison reform and occupational licensing. It’s clear how the War on Drugs is ineffective and its negative effects mostly fall on the poor and the black. But occupational licensing is another great example of how a libertarian policy instinct that generally wouldn’t get a ton of traction among the working class and poor - less government regulation - is unambiguously in their interest.

One of the canonical pieces of libertarian propaganda (in the good sense) is the story of the Louisiana florists. Louisiana is the only state in the nation that requires a license to become a florists. The exam is reportedly quite difficult, highly subjective, is administered only four times a year in Baton Rogue and has a passing rate of well below 50 percent. And who grades the test? Louisiana florists. Is there any mystery as to why it’s so difficult?

It’s unclear how licensing florists does anything for Louisiana consumers. Will an unlicensed florist threaten the safety of their customers? That seems unlikely. There’s a much simpler reason. Louisiana florists want to protect themselves from competition and have turned to the state government to serve as its monopoly enforcer. It is also very clear who loses out from such an arrangement. Louisiana consumers have to pay more for florists’ services because of the artificially low supply. Prospective florists too are also screwed, they simply can’t get in the business. This is a textbook case of regulatory capture: how certain special interests are able to manipulate regulation that is supposed to be in the public interest and instead use it to protect their own interests. Other cases of libertarian lore include limo drivers, hair braiders and casket sellers.

How to make things better is unclear. A ban on all occupational licensing isn’t the way to go. Not only is it unfeasible politically, certain occupational licensing probably does benefit consumers who have neither the time, information or ability to rate all sorts of services on their own. As of now, the best path for reform would be two-fold. In the short term, legal advocacy groups like the Institute for Justice should do their best to simply hassle state licensing boards and sue them. They’ve had some successes at striking down the more absurd laws, and through a strategy of attrition could do some real good. Along with that, libertarian bloggers, magazines and journals should be unceasing in reporting anti-competitive occupational licensing. Stories like those of the Louisiana florists, or the limo drivers of the casket sellers make great copy and get those who aren’t particularly libertarian (like me or Matt Yglesias) all fired up for the cause.

In the long/medium term, it would probably be best for states to pass laws stipulating that all occupational licensing schemes need an explicit statement of how they serve the public/consumer interest. While certain special interests with a motive in restricting competition and entry into their industry would probably weasel their way around this law, it could shame some of them and make legislators more aware of the perniciousness of these rules.

Babies and Farm Subsidies Bathwaters

Among the general populace, I am probably in the 99th percentile as far as detesting agricultural subsidies goes, but I think Jim Henley goes too far by expanding a criticism of agricultural policy into a larger critique of the regulatory state:

Three-quarters of a century of regulatory-state agriculture has left us with a system of subsidized corporate farms who deplete the soil, abuse animals and enjoy a coziness with state agents while the same state agents hassle independent operators and crusading eccentrics out of business…

If you believe that extensive government regulation and “support” of American agriculture is worth it, you believe that the state bigfooting small farmers on behalf of large ones is a cost worth the benefits managed agriculture delivers. But there’s no pretending that the cost is some odd thing that somehow happened and can be yanked out of the structure. It’s a load-bearing pillar of the regulatory state.

If one defines the “regulatory state” as the entirety of the federal government’s regulatory apparatus, including personnel, funding and fiscal extraction from regulated industries, then the greater agricultural regulatory infrastructure — tariffs, subsidies, quotas etc. — is a “load-bearing pillar of the regulatory state.” The problem for Henley is that it’s possible to imagine a world in which we had much of the regulatory state that liberals like, without the bad parts like our agricultural policy. The persistence of our pernicious agricultural policy has more to do with political dynamics — namely the absurd over-representation of rural states in both the electoral college and the Senate.

Henley’s conceptualization of the agricultural program is indicative of the way libertarians look at many problems of government over regulation (war on drugs and immigration are other examples), they always move on from criticizing a particular set of policies, to saying that we need overwhelming reform. This is a reason why liberals and libertarians make such bad allies even when we agree. Liberals think that we should probably focus on the more attainable goal — reforming ineffective and negative examples of regulatory overreach; libertarians, on the other hand, are rarely in a position to have meaningful input to the operations of government, and so can sit on the sidelines and complain about how we need to take the whole structure down.

Which Libertarians Believe This?

Amanda Marcotte has some not so nice things to say about libertarians:

Anyway, the whole statement betrays the fundamental issue with libertarianism, which is that it’s not based around a concept of liberty so much as it’s based around the concept that the bodies of the working class are the actual property of the rich. Sending people to die in war while avoiding the service yourself makes perfect sense in this regard; the working class belong to you, and you can dispose of their bodies for your own means if you see fit. Not saying that Megan believes that outright, necessarily, but she clearly from this statement thinks that the use of other human beings lives to advance an imperialist agenda is, on the moral scale, far down the list from asking the worthy rich to pay back to a society that has given them so much while others have so little.

There are many things wrong with libertarianism, but the idea that they see the working classes as their playthings for neo-imperialist adventures is certainly not one of them.  By libertarian, Marcotte seems to mean those conservatives that are pro tax cuts, social spending cuts, talk a good game about how bad the nannie/welfare state is, and also are big Iraq War boosters — kinda like Glenn Reynolds.  Too bad Reynolds isn’t a libertarian.  Surely Will Wilkinson, Brian Doherty, Julian Sanchez and Justin Logan(war opponents all) aren’t cogs in the neoconservative war machine, and they don’t want the “working class” to be their “property” as well.  It’s worth pointing out that it was a libertarian, Milton Friedman, who was the leader in stopping the real conscription of the working classes to fight neoimperialist wars (the Draft).  So it appears as if Marcotte is absurdly slandering an entire political philosophy based on Megan McArdle pointing out that taxes aren’t equivalent to charity.

Marcotte also decides to push my buttons on the marriage and poverty issue:

. This view of social spending infects the government under conservatives—the maudlin concern for the souls of the poor has led BushCo to do things like tie welfare benefits to finger-wagging classes about the importance of marriage, for instance.

While I won’t vouch for the good intentions of the Bush Administration’s social policies, “finger wagging” about marriage isn’t all that objectionable.  We have good data to show that those children who grow up in unmarried households have worse developmental outcomes and that lack of marriage and family breakdown can cement low social and economic status. So, is trying to get the poor to adopt behavioral changes so that they and their children wont’ be impoverished count as “finger wagging.”  I guess, but my concern is with poverty, not whether we should or shouldn’t “finger wag” at the poor.  Apparently, because the Bush administration has launched an awful and destructive war, having a social policy that attempts to encourage poverty fighting behavior that is somehow illegitimate. *Sigh*

The Free Nanny State

Whenever I hear Libertarians complain about how awful and unfree our nanny state of seat belt laws and trans fats bans is, I also think to ask, when were we ever any freer? Anita Allen has a similar question:

But Americans were never as free as Harsanyi imagines, and we are not now the “children” he peevishly fears we have become. Harsanyi finds it “inexplicable” that Americans have “allowed . . . worrywarts” to be their “parents.” It seems to me, however, that Americans have historically accepted what he calls “overreaching government” as often as we’ve rejected it. Certainly measures aimed at improving character or public health and safety are nothing new to American society.

It is true that in 1960 U.S. automobile drivers did not have to wear seat belts. But overreaching rules of other sorts reigned supreme. Under “blue laws,” most retail stores and virtually all liquor stores were closed on Sundays, presumably so everyone could stay sober and go to church. More profoundly, in 1960 married couples could not legally obtain birth control in Connecticut, mixed-race couples could not marry in Virginia, black kids in Georgia attended underfunded segregated public schools and homosexual sex was against the law.

A few things Allen doesn’t mention are that marginal tax rates, though a bit too low, were enormously high 50 years ago, while the communication and airline industries were stifled by regulation. Harsanyi’s libertarianism’s obsessive focus on negative freedom is slightly bewildering. The baseline of my liberalism is that freedom is good. This means the negative freedom to direct your life plans without outside interference, as well as the positive freedom to have a fuller menu of life plans to pursue. So, 50 years ago, with stifling taxes, oppressive and repressive cultural norms (freedom to marry your black girlfriend, freedom to be openly gay, freedom to be eccentric or nonconformist in any way was limited), and without the robust economic growth and technological development (the choices and options the internet allows weren’t around 50 years ago) we were a substantially less free society, no matter the greater negative freedom to not wear a seatbelt or to smoke in bars. Any account of freedom that says we were freer50 years ago is bankrupt.

What’s refreshing about certain sectors of the libertarian movement is that they are coming around (or maybe they were always there) to this view that positive freedom is, if not as important, at least comparable to negative freedom in importance. Brink Lindsay’s Age of Abundance celebrates the cultural and economic openness that has marked post war America, seeing them as distinctly intertwined. Tyler Cowen even lauded bigger government as the likely outcome of increases in both positive and negative liberty. Will Wilkinson, though opposed to nanny state intrusions, has this great post wherein he fudges the line between positive and negative freedom, and though he ultimately comes out in favor of having the government prioritize negative freedom, it’s only because he thinks that will ultimately enable an increase in people’s substantive freedom through greater growth. So Cowen, Lindsay, Wilkinson and I all agree on the ends, it’s just a debate about how to best achieve those ends. John Harsanyi is the past, those three are the wave of the libertarian future.

Now admittedly, this line of reasoning can lead you into some weird places for a libertarian, namely that Deng Xiaoping is perhaps the greatest man ever, but that’s another post for another day.

How Hot is Hayek?

Kathy G, in discussing and endorsing Alex Tabarrok’s fantastic Presidential Candidate Game Show, wonders why so many libertarian web types have the hots for Salma Hayek.  It is not enough to say that Ms. Hayek is super hot, on her end of hotness bell curve it’s pretty hard to make any real distinctions.  Why then do Dan Drezner, Tabarrok and much of the free market/libertarian internet ogle Salma with such frequency.  Part of it is a matter of timing - from what I understand, the phenomenon was launched with the infamous Hayek vs Hayek scorecard, comparing various attributes (age, philosophical depth etc) which was written in 1996, when Salma Hayek was quite prominent.  Her relative hotness has held up in the last 11 years, whereas other net oglefests like Jessica Biel weren’t around 10 years ago (well, she was in Seventh Heaven, but Jessica Biel as known today didn’t really exist).  Salma also was in movies that would appeal to the types that make up the mass of the libertarian internet - namely a movie that involved her doing some crazy dance with a snake and a subsequent hour long violent clash with a hoard of vampires.

There’s also the fact that the heavily male libertarian internet community is a collective sucker for pretty women, just look at the entire Libertarian Girl situation, where an otherwise unread 30 something libertarian blogger who lived with his parents decided to become “Libertarian Girl” - he even took a picture from a Russian bride website for his alter ego’s image.  His blog traffic skyrocketed until it was discovered that she was, in fact, a he.  The same people who read libertarian blogs also frequent Russian bride websites, so the gig was doomed from the start.

I would be remiss if I avoided the name issue.  Clearly, Salma wouldn’t be so consistently ogled in the libertarian blogosphere if her last name weren’t the same as St. Friedrich.  All the above reasons I gave just cemented Salma’s status as numero uno libertarian internet object of lust.  The more interesting question is if, say, Jessica Alba was Jessica Rawls or if Scarlet Johansen was Scarlet Galbraith would the (straight male) liberal blogosphere/internet be so enamored?

Rudy Shrugged

My dad pointed me to this charming quote from Giuliani’s website - it’s an answer to the question “Why Rudy”? This is Erik C. from Kalispell, Montana:

I am an Objectivist (i.e. fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy) and find Rudy the most qualified candidate in the GOP field. He doesn`t care about popularity, like some of the other candidates and the countless empty suits in the Congress and Senate, he is a man of principle over popularity. That is exactly what the USA needs; a leader cut from the same mettle as our Founding Fathers.

Despite my teenage dalliance with libertarianism, I never got withing spitting distance of Ayn Rand so I don’t know if there are some archaic Randian texts that would lead an Objectivist to support a candidate that is instinctively hostile to civil liberties - from banning ferrets to such charming ideas like “freedom is about authority” - but for some reason I doubt it.

This could only be a ploy, an anti Rudy mole, because most people will (or I hope should) take “I’m an Objectivist” as “believe the exact opposite of what I say.” Or maybe this is just a stupid, inconsistent Objectivist, which should surprise no one.

UPDATE:  If Ron Paul isn’t overwhelmingly winning the Objectivist vote, he’s in trouble.

Unlikely Endorsements

I was perusing my copy of the Cato Institute’s “Quarterly Message on Liberty” (don’t worry - I had a dalliance with libertarianism in my youth…like 3-4 years ago and they won’t stop sending me the mailing) aka Cato’s Letter, when I saw this quote adorning one of the pages: “Taking its name from a series of anti-tyranny pamphlets published in the early 18th century, the libertarian Cato institute is the foremost advocate for small-government principles in American life”

That’s all pretty standard stuff, the Cato institute is indeed named after “Cato’s Letters” written between 1720 and 1723 by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon.   The interesting part is who wrote this ringing endorsement.  None other than Mr. Command and Control Economics himself, Ezra Klein!  A guy who has called libertarians “airy-fairy philosophy types” and regularly criticizes and mocks libertarians (in a way I nearly always agree with!)  just might not be the best person to quote saying your institute totally kicks ass.

Libertarian Priorites and Tom Coburn

Tom Coburn has become something of a fiscal conservative/libertarian cult hero for his Mr Smith Goes to Washingtoneque campaign against earmarks, pork, and the general culture of spending in Washington.  David Weigel’s profile for reason wrestles with whether someone who has such reactionary social views can really be a libertarian folk hero.   Coburn’s horror at pork and “government run awry” as well as his right wing social views and authoritarian public health tendencies aree all genuine.  But Libertarians, or sometimes-psuedo-semi-recovering-ashamed-liberaltarians like myself, shouldn’t look to Coburn, or his brand of tacky fiscal conservatism to increase freedom or achieve any traditional libertarian goals.

First, ‘porkbusting’ while publicly popular does nada zilch to “reduce the size of government.”  As Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out in his excellent piece on the subject, ‘earmarks’ don’t expand spending, they instead just specify where the budget goes.  For example, instead of X dollars going to Department of Transportation, X dollars gets specifically funneled to build an off-ramp in some random Congressman’s district.

The libertarian and fiscal conservative excitement for the entire porkbusters movement is misguided because all it seems to do is let people think they’ve supported “shrinking government” without making any of the hard, unpopular, structural changes like Social Security privatization or Medicare reform or cutting defense spending.  Cutting pork is mostly to fire-up “grassroots” anti-government feeling, that to the bane of movement fiscal conservatives, is always vaguely anti-government but always unwilling to cut specific, popular programs.

The more meta point, however, is how cutting pork and giving Coburn good press really advances the Libertarian ideals of freedom, autonomy and non-coercion. The argument that any increase in discretionary spending is illegitimate coercion or an infringement on liberty is rather daft, government spending is so omnipresent that the libertarian movement would only go through every bill and whine and moan about it’s small, ridiculous contents.  Coburn, while fighting the good fight against earmarks, seems, on balance, pro more government power, anti individual power.  Weigel diligently goes through his anti-liberty agenda, supporting the PATRIOT ACT, supporting quarantine and a tuberculosis like response to AIDS, the Iraq war, death penalty for abortion doctors, not showing Schindler’s List on network TV and a whole raff of pretty far right social issues.

When one does the ‘libertarian calculus’ on Coburn, he’s clearly not someone reason or any libertarian should be lionizing, and Weigel does a good job of presenting why.

Towards a Neo-Libertarian Foreign Policy?

Michael Young has an interesting article in Reason about how libertarians should try to construct a foreign policy that’s more than just the kind of do-nothing realism many libertarians advocate.   He criticizes libertarians for not challenging neoconservatives in constructing a foreign policy, even with considerable flaws, around liberty and autonomy of the individual, which are, of course, core libertarian ideals:

But the most urgent task is for those who would place the individual at the center of social or political action, to find something useful to say when it affects victims abroad whose individuality is battered on a daily basis.

Young does not seem chastened enough by the Iraq War.  If your foreign policy is just based on “freedom for the individual” every two-bit dictator looks like a future Iraq. Additionally, the standard libertarian critique of wars like Iraq is that any war is surely to increase state power, at home.  It hardly takes a Reason subscriber to know that individual freedom and legal protections for individuals have been curtailed in the GWOT, as well as government expanding, in the great bureaucratic enlargement of the DHS and the massive run-up in defense spending.

Young shows what happens when you have an overwhelming “foreign policy” ie - a set of ideals and goals that you want to achieve - and how those overwhelming ideas come to bear with a very specific decision, like, say, invading a foreign country.  There is no framework that should dictate supporting the Iraq war, on the merits of that framework alone, besides Hitchens/Wolfowitz/Feith/Kristol-Kagan “transformative” neoconism, so when Young talks about valuing the individual in foreign policy, I want some straight forward assurances that any war will have some basic requirements - it’s been thought out, the country has already attacked us or has attacked and killed massive numbers of foreigners, it threatens international stability etc etc etc.

This is all part of a greater point, when comparing say, Romney’s and Obama’s foreign affairs articles, a lot of it was similar. Sure, Obama focuses more on proliferation, which is probably the preeminent, long-term security issue, but they were pretty similar. Yet, there is a huge gulf in terms of judgement, Romney still supports Iraq, Barack never did.  And at this point in the game, we need presidents and pundits that emphasize good judgement, ie not invading Iran or overreacting to terrorist attacks/threats, before any “foreign policy.”  We can afford the luxury of foreign policies that “emphasize the individual” once we’ve advanced based base-level, reflexive hawkishness and show some judgement in military affairs.