But even from the standpoint of political tactics, Hawley is overlooking some facts. If he is correct – as I think he is – that some of the GOP base may be inclined to support a “screw foreigners” non-interventionist platform, then precisely such a ”tough-guy”, nationalist vision of this politics is going to germinate anyway, independent of any pandering from the Larisons and Raimondos and other putative sissies. Wait a second now- one already has! Indeed, its almost as if Hawley has never heard of John Derbyshire, or the small one-man revolt he conducted in the pages of the National Review. Principled non-interventionists should be ecumenical enough to welcome and support such developments, as we do not have many other options. But let be wary of the limitations, too. The “To Hell with ‘em Hawks” position is to allow acts of militarism and then righteously complain when they are not terminated swiftly enough. I love the Derb as much as anyone, but his main achievement has been to retain employment at the National Review, rather then to advance non-interventionist politics.

Another problem presents itself. Hawley is right that right-wing interventionists will often sound as sentimental and rootless as any left-wing globalist, which should not suprise us, since they share the same foundational assumptions, however much they differ on praxis. But the parties of intervention, especially in the GOP, are usually shrewd enough to sound hard-headed and self-interested at the start. At the beginning, most wars are justified by exaggerating some foreign threat or nemesis. Only after the threat has been conclusively eliminated – and the propaganda value of scare-mongering therefore exhausted – are we paraded with all the Purple fingers piety. The effect of the Hawley style is to make us more competitive after the intervention has begun, while neutering us during the critical opening stage of the debate. The maximalist goal of non-interventionism, obviously, is to prevent interventions, not to simply end them or win the argument about them after the fact. I have noticed that many champions of American hegemony are willing to make retrospective concessions. Almost all these people will admit to mistakes in the past; some of them will even admit the whole affair was a mistake, while loftily reminding us of the need to “get over the past” and “salvage some good” from the whole episode. A nationalism built on contempt for foreigners will almost always, in the clutch, err on the side of the war. They may grow disgruntled with the enterprise more quickly, but that will occur only after most of the damage has been done. Its like punching a cloud: the possibility of invading some foreign country is raised, we follow Hawley and say dont invade, “screw foreigners!”, and the right-wing interventionist nods along saying “yes, screw foreigners”, which is precisely why we should no qualms about slaughtering them.

Very seldom do political tacticians appreciate the fact that almost half the country doesnt even vote. Some of these people, being apathetic or illiterate about politics, can never be expected to vote. But it is plausible that some of them have reached the accurate conclusion that there is little difference between the major parties, as these are both sibling wings of the same establishment. It is in this pond, not the dried up well of the GOP, where the fishing is most profitable. Any bridge built to the GOP base may come at the expense of energizing an altogether more interesting and reliable constituency.

Any successful outreach has to start with where your target audience actually is: In this case, people who beleive deeply and sincerely that their liberty and well being of their nation is intimately tied to the well being of the poor huddled masses in Wherever-stan. The GOP base does have an enormously large Jacksonian contingent that I think could conceivably be persuaded by “not our damn business” type of arguements. Right leaning non-interventionists are not going to “solve” the nationalist problem, but we can approach the issue in a way that does challenge those “imposing a limit assumptions”.